Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Inanity" data-source="post: 7979827" data-attributes="member: 7023541">Yeah and I think in this context it is important to distinguish two theories from one another ; as conflating them sometimes leads to confusion, and clarifying the differences will illuminate the context:First, these theories are intended to be about D&D worlds (namely ways we can specify the correct metaphysics/or simpler the correct theory of the D&D world, not our own). EDIT: Also, it is worth noting that the theories of IN-GAME thinkers may be constructed in a different language (well surely they wouldnt use OUR language) but we can say this: if an in-game world thinker happens to construct a theory T and also T happens to be correct then T is (im)possibly translatable to T* (where T* is OUR theory we STIPULATE to be correct in the game world; my (partial) theories 1), 2) and 3) below are all possible contenders for T*.)1) That there IS NO MAGIC; there is just the stuff real world physicists talk about (we import real physics into our game world and say no magic exists there ony OUR STUFF; or real medievel science or whatever I use physics as an example and not a constraint; we could use ancient Aristotilian metaphysics of Matter [earth/air/fire/water] and Form; or whatever)...  This D&D world is one were magic is not a thing at all, no FIFTH FORCE (in this context)... Maybe we can simulate magical effects with technology but there really just exists no magical force.AND2) There is magic and it is an indirectly observable (or even directly obervable) force much akin to and fundamentally related to the other PHYSICAL forces and there exists a (possible) correct (maybe unknown) theory where M (magic, the 5th force) is given a consistent and unified treatment in relation to electromagnetics, gravity etc (or WHATEVER THE TRUE theory is.. quantum locations whatever)... Now there are interesting questions concerning whether or not 1) and 2) are in fact, perhaps hiddenly, the 'same' theory (whether the content of one of the theories somehow MEANs the same as the other, bt that is a sort of tricky and hard discussion; that I am willing to disucssion if interested but for what its worth I think the truth condition for some of the statements in the two theories are distinct)...There is another theory that is worth mentioning.3) There is Magic. It is so radically different than what we find [HERE], that any language that correctly describes magic is not commensurate (or translatable to) a language that correctly describes physics ( magic could be fundamental could not be fundamental, could be alien influences, etc.)I imagine there are other possibilities as well but ill stop now...EDIT and P.S. to those concerned, there is major meta language vs object language issues in the above sentences (mainly in my explications of theories 1),2) and 3; i.e. the sentences of the theories are couched in some quasi-language, at least clauses are written using metametalanguage  or object language words without signifying the change or difference). Solvable but glaring to the trained.</blockquote>

Verification