The biggest mistake you can make.
- Thread starter Storyfixer
- Start date
- Status
In response to the original question:
I do not believe there is such thing as a 'worst' pitfall, there are a multitude of pitfalls, and they can all be seen as bad to varying degrees, depending on who you speak to.
I do not believe there is such thing as a 'worst' pitfall, there are a multitude of pitfalls, and they can all be seen as bad to varying degrees, depending on who you speak to.
No, I think you are a bit off here and using a one dimensional model when you need a multidimensional one.
Since you seem to have some training in physics, lets expand the concept of being able to step out of time vs. free will vs predictive ability.
Think of the uncertainty principle and then think of quantum physics. If you were able to step out of time and then look at the normal flow of time, your view point would correspond to one reference frame. However, if any version of you is within 'the past' then you have in effect created a transcendental equation or rather, an equation in which the independant variable cannot be isolated from the dependant variable.
The result of this type of equation would be multiple dimensions. These multiple dimensions would correspond to multiple possibilities which then ties back to quantum physics and how there is a probability associated with 'an outcome'.
If I was to try to wrap all of this up into a nutshell. If you have the ability to step out of time and look at time, then yes, you can predict. However, if that 'prediction' funnels back into the timeline, that prediction will create multiple splits and outcomes.
If you are jumping around time, then this will also happen as you will inadvertantly impact the timeline.
This does not mean that there is no such thing as free will. Just because I can predict that you will go to school tomorrow does not negate the 'free will' choices you will make to get to school.
Basically, Uncle Jim is right
Mel...
All you say here is true for those of us in the so-called "real" world. (That would be all of us, actually--the rest of this is a thought experiment.) I can put into my head the concept of infinity, of more than three dimensions of space (and by extrapolation, of time), and yet I can't draw a picture of it, model it in clay, or write a computer program that absolutely defines anything other than what you say is possible.
Well, sure. This is, after all, a discussion forum all about writing speculative fiction. If we must insist the discussion only deals with reality, then maybe it should be bumped up to the Science Fact subforum.
(And anyway, I did say, "if we assume...".)I emphasize the word "if" in dgiharris' comment, because it reinforces the notion that this is, after all, a discussion of speculation.
QFTBasically, Uncle Jim is right
This is why fiction is fiction - and fun
Look at something like the concept of a quantum computer - every eventuality possible calculated at the same time. If in all those eventualities, something happens 92% of the time, it's a safe bet that for you it will happen. It would seem like you're reading the future when in fact you're simply interpreting data that no one else has access to.
You've also got the possibility of using the POV of an infinite being compared to a finite being. While time seems to go on forever to something finite, to something infinite it doesn't, it's merely a cross section with a defined beginning and end. We define time by the movement of the earth (on its axis and around the sun) but that's not a universal constant (it's certainly not a multi-universal constant) so a being who doesn't use the reference point of that rotation time doesn't mean the same thing. If an infinite being is observing a finite universe, it's a bit like watching a movie with the ability to fast forward and rewind.
Look at something like the concept of a quantum computer - every eventuality possible calculated at the same time. If in all those eventualities, something happens 92% of the time, it's a safe bet that for you it will happen. It would seem like you're reading the future when in fact you're simply interpreting data that no one else has access to.
You've also got the possibility of using the POV of an infinite being compared to a finite being. While time seems to go on forever to something finite, to something infinite it doesn't, it's merely a cross section with a defined beginning and end. We define time by the movement of the earth (on its axis and around the sun) but that's not a universal constant (it's certainly not a multi-universal constant) so a being who doesn't use the reference point of that rotation time doesn't mean the same thing. If an infinite being is observing a finite universe, it's a bit like watching a movie with the ability to fast forward and rewind.
Fine, if you all insist on talking fiction instead of truth, then time is a pretzel stuck to an M&M. I'm sure the Pastafarians can relate.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,429
- Reaction score
- 311
- Location
- Sacramento CA
- Website
- dalehartleyemery.com
Unless you include the robot novels and the empire novels, which Asimov eventually linked in. And unless you include the Foundation novels written by The Killer B's (Greg Bear, Greg Benford, David Brin). If you include all of those, there are 18 volumes. A few years ago I read them all in story-chronology order, and quite enjoyed them.
Dale
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,429
- Reaction score
- 311
- Location
- Sacramento CA
- Website
- dalehartleyemery.com
Ah, but the amulet is just as likely to make her a half inch wider or thicker.
Dale
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 25,582
- Reaction score
- 3,785
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Website
- madhousemanor.wordpress.com
No, eternal isn't the same thing as timelessness. Eternal is, quite literally, outside of time. That's what the word means.
That is only one meaning of the word, and the least common. The most common meaning is endless, perpetual, as in going on forever.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,429
- Reaction score
- 311
- Location
- Sacramento CA
- Website
- dalehartleyemery.com
I often hear it used to mean always relevant, even with the passage of time.
Dale
I think that one's more timeless than eternal.
Timeless is generally a descriptive quality. Eternal is generally a state of perpetual being.
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,429
- Reaction score
- 311
- Location
- Sacramento CA
- Website
- dalehartleyemery.com
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 24,466
- Reaction score
- 12,761
- Location
- Enchanted Forest and/or editing cave
- Website
- bettielee.wordpress.com
By what method of temporal interpretation do you want the answer? Or should I simply try and deposit it directly into your brain by telepathy?
IIRC, that would be the biggest mistake you can make.Or should I simply try and deposit it directly into your brain by telepathy?
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 1,429
- Reaction score
- 311
- Location
- Sacramento CA
- Website
- dalehartleyemery.com
Social costs rather than direct personal costs
In my fantasy novel, a 12 year old boy gains the ability to increase or decrease people's desire to say what they are thinking. This ability isn't telepathy, exactly, but it's similarly powerful and has a somewhat similar effect, so I thought I'd explain what I'm doing, and why I have no direct costs for using the magic. I do have limitations, indirect costs, and a big one-time cost for gaining magical ability.
The limitations are: First, a mage can influence only one person at a time. Second, use of the magic requires the mage's full attention, which leaves the mage vulnerable for the duration. Third, the use of magic is visible to other mages in the area, so you can't influence people in secret. (This third limitation matters only later in the story; at first there are no other mages to observe the boy's use of magic.)
The main reason I don't want direct costs for using magic is that I'm deliberately setting up a "tragedy of the commons" problem for a later book, after magic has become widespread: There's a large but finite pool of stuff that fuels the magic; each use consumes a tiny but non-zero amount of the magical stuff; there's a way to replenish the stuff, but it's onerous; and there's no direct cost for using the magical stuff. So though each use has no direct cost for the user, it does have a cost to the community in that it diminishes the pool of available magic. In the later book want to explore how society quakes when the stock of magical stuff runs low, the cost of use is low, and the cost of replenishing is onerous.
More importantly for the first book: The social costs of of having this ability are high enough to cause enormous problems. We all have secrets and other thoughts that we very much want to keep private. If you knew that this kid could make you say what you're thinking, then when you're near him you're probably more likely to think of the things you're afraid he'll make you say. People ain't gonna like having this kid around. In the first book, it's these social costs that I want to explore.
There is one big cost (or at least a risk) associated with gaining magical ability in the first place. To gain magic, you must have a near-death experience in a particular place (the source of the magical stuff). The "near" part of "near-death" is problematic. There's significant chance that you'll end up not only nearly dead, but really most sincerely dead. But once you've survived that, the mage pays no direct cost for each use.
Given all of that, I think I'm okay making the use of magic "free."
Dale
In my fantasy novel, a 12 year old boy gains the ability to increase or decrease people's desire to say what they are thinking. This ability isn't telepathy, exactly, but it's similarly powerful and has a somewhat similar effect, so I thought I'd explain what I'm doing, and why I have no direct costs for using the magic. I do have limitations, indirect costs, and a big one-time cost for gaining magical ability.
The limitations are: First, a mage can influence only one person at a time. Second, use of the magic requires the mage's full attention, which leaves the mage vulnerable for the duration. Third, the use of magic is visible to other mages in the area, so you can't influence people in secret. (This third limitation matters only later in the story; at first there are no other mages to observe the boy's use of magic.)
The main reason I don't want direct costs for using magic is that I'm deliberately setting up a "tragedy of the commons" problem for a later book, after magic has become widespread: There's a large but finite pool of stuff that fuels the magic; each use consumes a tiny but non-zero amount of the magical stuff; there's a way to replenish the stuff, but it's onerous; and there's no direct cost for using the magical stuff. So though each use has no direct cost for the user, it does have a cost to the community in that it diminishes the pool of available magic. In the later book want to explore how society quakes when the stock of magical stuff runs low, the cost of use is low, and the cost of replenishing is onerous.
More importantly for the first book: The social costs of of having this ability are high enough to cause enormous problems. We all have secrets and other thoughts that we very much want to keep private. If you knew that this kid could make you say what you're thinking, then when you're near him you're probably more likely to think of the things you're afraid he'll make you say. People ain't gonna like having this kid around. In the first book, it's these social costs that I want to explore.
There is one big cost (or at least a risk) associated with gaining magical ability in the first place. To gain magic, you must have a near-death experience in a particular place (the source of the magical stuff). The "near" part of "near-death" is problematic. There's significant chance that you'll end up not only nearly dead, but really most sincerely dead. But once you've survived that, the mage pays no direct cost for each use.
Given all of that, I think I'm okay making the use of magic "free."
Dale
Mistake? Did I hit the wrong brain again?
... I'll get the mop.
Never try and telepathically transmit while microwaving a hot pocket.
If this thread were timeless, the wheel would be both on and off, simultaneously.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 7,705
- Reaction score
- 1,336
- Location
- Where the Wild Things Are
- Website
- www.christine-norris.com
The biggest mistake you can make is assuming you know the biggest mistake. Anything can be done, IF it's done well. Taking something safe (and probably boring) and doing it badly IS a big mistake (the biggest? Meybbe, meybbe not.)
Welcome to spec. fic.
Welcome to spec. fic.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 25,582
- Reaction score
- 3,785
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Website
- madhousemanor.wordpress.com
Not to mention no one thought to read the fine print that said "Hamster required for proper operation."
- Status