Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Fanaelialae" data-source="post: 8543952" data-attributes="member: 53980">My definition of knowing is that you have to understand the why, not just the how. You don't have to understand the why perfectly (at the quantum level, as you put it) but you need a solid understanding how why it works, not just how to make it work. If you've learned how to fix your car's engine, but you can't extend that knowledge into fixing other engines, then you don't actually understand how an engine works, you've just figured out how to fix your particular engine. Which isn't really knowing (or, at best, is an extremely narrow and limited case of knowing).If your definition is that you just need to understand how (ie, you repeatedly try random things until you get the result you want, and then just repeat that) then, sure, I agree that D&amp;D magic is by definition knowable.That's a really low bar though. That's like someone claiming that because they can brute force a combination lock by trying every possible combination, they know how combination locks work and how to circumvent them. If that's the extent of their understanding, then I would argue that they do not understand combination locks.And while we can certainly combination locks in the RW, it's not hard to imagine a &quot;combination lock&quot; designed by a godlike intelligence that is simply beyond the capacity of lesser intelligences to comprehend, and hence, unknowable to those lesser intelligences.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Fanaelialae, post: 8543952, member: 53980"] My definition of knowing is that you have to understand the why, not just the how. You don't have to understand the why perfectly (at the quantum level, as you put it) but you need a solid understanding how why it works, not just how to make it work. If you've learned how to fix your car's engine, but you can't extend that knowledge into fixing other engines, then you don't actually understand how an engine works, you've just figured out how to fix your particular engine. Which isn't really knowing (or, at best, is an extremely narrow and limited case of knowing). If your definition is that you just need to understand how (ie, you repeatedly try random things until you get the result you want, and then just repeat that) then, sure, I agree that D&D magic is by definition knowable. That's a really low bar though. That's like someone claiming that because they can brute force a combination lock by trying every possible combination, they know how combination locks work and how to circumvent them. If that's the extent of their understanding, then I would argue that they do not understand combination locks. And while we can certainly combination locks in the RW, it's not hard to imagine a "combination lock" designed by a godlike intelligence that is simply beyond the capacity of lesser intelligences to comprehend, and hence, unknowable to those lesser intelligences. [/QUOTE]

Verification