In A World Where Magic Exists...

[Raven Crowking]

Our Models can predict future, and do so on a regular basis.

Predict =/= confirm.

We cannot know that a prediction will be true. We can only know that a past prediction was true.

We believe that we can accurately predict the next solar eclipse, when we'll have full moon again, or how long will last the fall of a ball of lead from 10 feet, but we do not know until the event has become a past event.

The underlined sentences aren't true. That's the difference between scientific thought and magic thought, between experiments and anecdotes, between logic and superstition.

No.....deciding that those sentences are not true is, in point of fact, magical thinking. It is believing that your model, and/or your underlying assumptions, are more "true" than other models and/or underlying assumptions that produce the same results.

4 = 4.
2 + 2 = 4.
1 + 3 = 4.
(-8) + 4 = 4.
/-4/ = 4.
(2 + 8) - 6 = 4.
[(2 x 10) + 17] - 33 = 4.

All of those statements are true, and, if you have only "I used a formula to derive 4" as evidence, all are equally likely to be true.

Likewise, there is no rational method of differentiating between models that equally match the observed phenomena, except in terms of utility. From a rational standpoint, Occam's Razor should have read, "All else being equal, use the model that is less complex (i.e., easier to use)." The less complex model is not necessarily more reflective of reality, however.

That we do, in fact, give preferential belief to some particular model -- regardless of what that model is (again, so long as both are equally consistent in terms of their predictions meshing with observation) -- is entirely a matter of faith.

This is equally true whether I choose to believe in a model with 11 dimensions, superstrings, or flying spaghetti monsters. Unless there is a way to actually test a difference in the relationship between prediction and observation, so that one model is shown to clearly be closer to observed reality, the models are rationally co-equal.

CAVEAT ONE: If a model is based upon a logical or mathematical error, the model can be demonstrated to be faulty on that basis.

CAVEAT TWO: The foregoing is based upon the principle that basic assumptions cannot be rationally proven, and therefore can only be tested on the basis of examination of the outcomes of those assumptions (i.e., how what follows from a base assumption is in accord with, or opposed to, actual observation).

NOTE: It is rational to say, "I see no reason to believe in 11 dimensions." It is not rational to then add, "therefore, those 11 dimensions do not exist".

Once you step beyond acceptance of the model as a working hypothesis, and begin to believe in the model as reality, you are stepping into the land of magical thinking.

Speaking of cancer, it's the difference between having a cancer, and no longer having it. And I'll bet my 1000$ to any pilgrim you want. To all of them at same time, actually. Gladly

No thank you.

As Hume points out, one does not need to have knowledge to have faith in one's model. One should simply not mistake that faith for knowledge!


RC

 

[Deset Gled]

"some guy had cancer, went to Lourdes, and got healed, therefore, visiting Lourdes heal".

Totally. This is just one piece of anecdotal evidence, and can't be used to show how healing works worldwide.

Lourdes get 5 million visitors per year. Even if one of them heal each year, the chance to spontanously heal in Lourdes is statistically inferior to the chance to spontanously heal in any other place

Unfotunately, just because Lourdes happens to be one of the biggest sites visited for miracle healing doesn't mean that we can take statistics from Lourdes very seriously. The bottom line is that no one really knows what methods Lourdes uses to calculate how many visitors they get, what percentage are spontaneously healed, and what percentage are really healed. The only thing we really know from these stats is that at Lourdes chances are low that you will be miraculously healed. To conclude anything else from this data is assuming facts not in evidence.

Fact is: there are like 4 or 5 people that the Pope acknowledgesas "miracle healed in Lourdes".

Yeah, but this information all comes from the Pope Benedict XVI (PBXvI). Personally, I don't really trust any information that comes from PBXvI. All of the numbers he's talking about only come from polling people within his religion. He also has no way of verifying the information that people give him. Even if we take his information as true at face value, it's not a good indicator for miracle healing wordwide, which encompasses many beliefs and other miracle outlets other than the ones PVXvI reports on.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

While that's right about the low poor peasant, it does not make sense once you move into the higher classes and higher spells. For example: compare the cost of a few galleons, a bunch of camels, the wage of sailors, drivers, guards, food for them for a couple months, the chance to be robbed.... Add them all. Now compare it to "permanent circle of teleport". Why would a rich merchant that regularly goes to East to brink silk and other goods do it with mundane methods? It's like technology. A 1805 peasant might feel himself scared of steam power, and he might be unable to pay for it regardless. But the rich ones... why should?

That's why Eberron makes so much sense. In a setting, either magic is misterious, unknown, and dangerous (ie Call of Cthulu), or it should become pervasive.

Okay, permanent circle of teleport 324,000 gp (Circle of Teleport 18th level caster x 9th level spell x 2,000 gp for permanent enchantment). Can carry up to 1 ton (115 lbs. per person up to level in people) up to 2,000 miles. You will need 7 of these to reach all the way around the world (if it is Earth Sized), so total cost: 2,268,000 gp
You need 18 people to transport the items for two years: 13,104 gp
Total cost 2,281,230 gp

One sailing ship 10,000 gp (transports about 150 tons of equipment)
Crew of 51: 7 gp per week for 2 years--36,400 gp
Common 3 sp meal for 2 years: 32,850 gp
Insurance Premiums (based on $15,000 per month protection against Somali Pirates): 12,162 gp
Grand Total: 91,412 gp

So for the the cost of one Teleportation Circle you could finance 25 voyages across the sea. Granted at 1 ton a day every day you could transport 730 tons vs. 150 tons in that amount of time. So you would have a base increase in cost of exotic goods of about five times as much, just to finance the transportation of using a Teleportation Circle.

Now if you just wanted to enchant an item with just Greater Teleport you could, it would cost 45,000 gp at minimum caster level, but you would still need seven of them so it would cost 315,000 gp, you could get away with 9 workers for two years, which would be 6,552 gp, so the cost would be 321,552 gp which is only about the cost of 4 voyages, you would be able to transport about 0.5 tons per day. So the markup would be about twice as much.

And none of this covers the cost of initially sending out adventurers to establish such a teleportation system (and we know they are a greedy lot).

 

[RavenBlackthorne]

Incidentally, given the lack of a unified cosmological basis for magic in the D&D universe -- WHY exactly does silver hurt certain beings but not others? Why not gold? Or platinum? -- the residents would naturally be confused about what works and what doesn't, since there's no identifiable pattern of cause and effect.

I love this idea. What if, in a campaign in multiple planes/worlds, werewolves etc are vulnerable to different materials in different places. And this stems from what the natives of each place BELIEVES hurts them.
This could lead to confusion when travellers from another planet lay the smackdown on the a werewolf with a gold club. Or, when travelling to another plane those cold iron weapons lose their potency.
Which in turn could lead to shapshifters learning about this and trying to cause people's belief in "flavoured" weapons to crumble so they become invincible. And a group of daring adventurers plane hopping to spread the word that anything can hurt a shapeshifter if you believe hard enough.
Which in turn could be a deific battle on a grand scale played over worlds. Or even believing hard enough to kill a god!
Just a rant but I think I may have given myself my next campaign idea

 

[triqui]

Yeah, but this information all comes from the Pope Benedict XVI (PBXvI). Personally, I don't really trust any information that comes from PBXvI. All of the numbers he's talking about only come from polling people within his religion. He also has no way of verifying the information that people give him. Even if we take his information as true at face value, it's not a good indicator for miracle healing wordwide, which encompasses many beliefs and other miracle outlets other than the ones PVXvI reports on.

that cames from all the Popes before BXVI as well, not only him. Compare it with the amount of people that have visited the place during those years. Use whatever percentage of them as a correction to estimate which ones where diseased, and you will still be below placebo level of effectiveness.

Point is: there's so much people going to Lourdes, that it's absurd to think nobody would heal. It's a matter of fact people spontanously heal. With hundreds of millions people going to Lourdes, of course someone has been healed. Unless Lourdes have some magical property to avoid healing, it's just common sense that someone, sometime, among the hundred millions, have healed. Just like it's common sense that somewhere, sometime, someone that drinks Cocacola has healed too. There are so much millions of people that drink Cocacola, that's almost statistically impossible that none of them has healed spontanously, ever, during last 100 years or so. That does not mean Cocacola has healing properties, though. However, one should not mistake this with a cause-effect relation.

Example:
95% of serial killers can read. Therefore, reading cause killing sprees.<-flawed cause-effect relation

 

[triqui]

And none of this covers the cost of initially sending out adventurers to establish such a teleportation system (and we know they are a greedy lot).

Which is pointless, as you need to pay adventurers to establish route, whatever method you are using. Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus weren't free of cost, you know.

Back to your calculations:

I no longer own 3rd PHB, but SRD says Teleportation Circle work like Greater Teleport to any creature into the circle. It says nothing about daily limits Teleportation Circle. Greater Teleport says it works like Teleport, just without range. Teleport, Greater
So you just need 2 of them, to cover travel from Venetia to China, and back. It means it can teleport as much people as you need (one at a time), instantly, from Venetia to China, carrying as much as it can load (Teleport. So if you teleport a mule or horse, that's a lot of weight. Even if not, it doesn't matter: you could have a human carrying 50 pounds per travel, and make 10 travels per hour (if circles are in your warestores, you actually need to move 10 yards or so) during 10 hours shifts (not a really hard shift for middle age standards, and lower than in a galleon anyways), and move 2.5 tons per day with just one worker, or 25 if you use 10 workers. Using the 51 workers you'll need for a galleon, you'll move 125 tons per day. So bassically, you can move the same amount of cargo you can use in a Galleon, just that you cross the planet instantly

That said: even if your calculation were right, it only means poor merchants, who only can afford 1 galleon, might not go the Teleport route. But given enough trade power, it's not cost-effective. Your cost from pirate insurace is way too low, Somalian pirates are just a couple of aficionados compared to Francis Drake, Henry Morgan, Le Ollonais or any of the Mediterranean turk pirates. Spanish Galleons from America often came in groups of 10+, guarded by war galleons, to avoid them. By the cost of 5 galleons, a couple of war galleons, the several cannons you need (each of them quite costly), and the hundreds of soldiers you need to keep 700 tons of cargo safe, you could make a couple circles of teleport, and be just fine. I can say, without a doubt, that given the chance, Felipe II would had spend that amount of gold in a blink to get a sure, safe route from Sevilla to Cartagena de Indias or Habana. It would be much cheaper than losing hundreds of gold and silver tons, dozens of galleons, and thousands of men trying to keep the sea safe.

 

[triqui]

Predict =/= confirm.

By the proper definition of confirm, you are right. However, it's pointless as far as the prediction is 100% safe. I'm 100% certain that tomorrow the sun will rise in the morning, as I'm 100% certain that if I drop an apple, it'll fall to soil and not fly to sky.

We believe that we can accurately predict the next solar eclipse, when we'll have full moon again, or how long will last the fall of a ball of lead from 10 feet, but we do not know until the event has become a past event.

No, we believe that there's a God, we know when the next solar eclipse would be. You have your right to doubt the prediction, but that does not mean we don't know it, just mean you are in doubt. We know things for sure. We don't know all things for sure, but that's another issue. As I said, Hume is just one example of philosophist. There are a ton of others, and quite a lot of them oppose Hume, with rethoric as proper or better. Inmanuel Kant, for example, disagree with Hume in several aspects, agree in others, and go beyond him in others. So does Descartes, Wittgestain or Popper.

I know the apple will fall. I don't believe it'll do.

No.....deciding that those sentences are not true is, in point of fact, magical thinking. It is believing that your model, and/or your underlying assumptions, are more "true" than other models and/or underlying assumptions that produce the same results.

4 = 4.
2 + 2 = 4.
1 + 3 = 4.
(-8) + 4 = 4.
/-4/ = 4.
(2 + 8) - 6 = 4.
[(2 x 10) + 17] - 33 = 4.

All of those statements are true, and, if you have only "I used a formula to derive 4" as evidence, all are equally likely to be true.

No, all of those statements are exactly the same, a logical assumption derived from the rules of math, logic, and science. To make the comparisson true with superstition and post hoc ergo propter hoc, it should go like:

2+2=4
I made some numbers while wearing a red shirt=4.

That's unconnected logic. The superstition after that would be "when I make some numbers while wearing a red shirt, the result is 4", which is faulty logic.

Likewise, there is no rational method of differentiating between models that equally match the observed phenomena, except in terms of utility. From a rational standpoint, Occam's Razor should have read, "All else being equal, use the model that is less complex (i.e., easier to use)." The less complex model is not necessarily more reflective of reality, however.

That's an oversimplification of Occam's Razor. What Occam said is "pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" which means you don't need to continue adding complexities once you have an explanation that works. If an explanation is sufficient for a phenomena, and the explanation is found true, you don't need to keep adding extra layers of complexity to make the model work. For example: Newton showed how gravity works: a mass attract another mass. It's shown true, and it is sufficient to explain things. So you don't need to add extra layers of complexity, asking things such as "does God want the mass be attracted by the mass, or does it happens against His will?". This layer is unnecessarelly (whatever the answer is) to explain the event, so you don't really need to get involved into it. Just as you don't need to get involved asking "is there a God over God? Who created God? Can God's Will go against natural law, and make an apple not fall? If so, can it go against the will of the god who created God, in the case God was created by a God of Gods?" and so on. You could keep yourself asking metaphysical questions forever, none of which will add nothing to your already explained event of apple's fall, becouse the explanation is already sufficient and true.

 

[Raven Crowking]

By the proper definition of confirm, you are right. However, it's pointless as far as the prediction is 100% safe. I'm 100% certain that tomorrow the sun will rise in the morning, as I'm 100% certain that if I drop an apple, it'll fall to soil and not fly to sky.

Yes, and there are other people who are 100% certain of other things that you believe irrational. And the logic behind your 100% certainty is no better than the logic behind theirs.

There is no logic by which this level of certainty can be derived.

That certainty, therefore, comes from something other than logic.

But, if you find it comforting to believe otherwise, you are free to do so.

 

[triqui]

Yes, and there are other people who are 100% certain of other things that you believe irrational. And the logic behind your 100% certainty is no better than the logic behind theirs.

yep, like the ones that think having big trousers in the closet make you fat. However, that "logic" is not logic, its a fallacy: a sentence that llooks logic but does not follow the rules of logic. Like the All crows are black, Obama is black, therefore Obama is a crow. It *sounds* logic, but its not.

There is no logic by which this level of certainty can be derived.

and there is were you are fatally wrong. There ARE logic systems with 100% certain derived from logic. Starting from basic rules such as The All is greater than the Part, Cause Precede Consequence, and rule as A implies B does not mean B implies A, you can go up in complexity and derive math, physics, science. To the point you are 100 % certain when would be the next full moon. The fact we arent certain of other things, such as when will rain in Wyoming, does not change the fact we are certain of others. Hme was against of this, but its not writen anywhere that Hume is bound to be right. Actually, Kant goes beyond him.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Please, supply me the chain of logic that demonstrates with 100% certainty that an apple will fall.

Indeed, please supply me with any chain of logic that does not rely upon unproven assertions.

Hume isn't right because it was "written somewhere" that he was; Hume is right because of the nature of logic itself.

For those who are interested in this debate: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/

It is not surprising that Kant wanted a sense of certainty; most human beings do. IMHO, Kant's answer to Hume was already foreseen and strongly rebutted in Hume's own work. But to each his own, I suppose.



RC