Demon power ups

Welcome To Astlan Forums Into The Abyss Demon power ups

  • This topic has 162 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 4 years ago by Tizzy.
Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 163 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1806

    So maybe I should repeat and expand on what I said a little bit ago in another topic….

    Tizzy is a demon. He is also insane. I hate to burst his bubble, but he is not omniscient and there is no guarantee anything he says is true.

    In fact, if you want a “real spoiler” a lot of characters, in the book(s), in the Library Documents/Appendices, and in the forum are going to tell you what they know to be true, or what they believe to be true. That doesn’t make it so.

    So for example, if one character says one thing as fact, and another character says something else that is contrary…that’s not a plot inconsistency just like in real life you have to judge which one to believe by weighing the evidence. The same is true for all the articles/documents you and or Tom have been reading. They are some scholars writings/beliefs/knowledge. They could have some stuff wrong, or all of it.

    That’s actually something of why I have so many different points of view. I know from some reviews the large number of different points of view drive some people nuts. Truth is mutable.

    Also, remember Tizzy is a likable demon. he will tell people things to get them to like him. So, who knows? he could just be agreeing with Maou to get him to like him, and pulling stuff out of his pipe storage….

    #1807
    Rosver
    Member

    Uh… does that mean we are just wasting our time having discusion here? Should we stop?

    That kinda kill my interest to continue being here. If I can get essentially nothing here better do nothing yes?

    Huh! What a bummer.

    #1808

    So one moment you are bummed because you are getting too much information and it is spoiling the next book for you

    And the next you want to leave because you might not be?

    And they say I’m insane? o:)

    This is life…this is how you find truth…you experience it, you collect information from various sources, not all of which are accurate, some of which might be deceptive, you then have to put the pieces together and figure out which ones you believe and which ones you don’t.

    That’s how science works, that’s also how religion should work…that’s actually how all good stories work. (Of course, DoA being non-fiction, this isn’t applicable here but…)

    That being said…this author guy is the one who’s lying. Remember, I am telling him the story, he lives in your world, not mine, nor Astlan. He’s never actually been to Astlan. So I don’t know how he thinks he knows more than I do. He’s just a guy with a hell of a lot of ego.

    I wouldn’t believe anything he says.

    Trust me. I am the truth, I am the way and the light! I am Tizzy!

    #1810
    Rosver
    Member

    Huh? That is not what I was saying.

    I had never asked questions I don’t want to be answered. My questions often deals with descripancies like those appliances in the Abyss, and the Nuclear Reaction/Quarks issue. The answer to them aren’t spoilers since I was asking for clarifications for what I see errors.

    And the reason for why I want to leave is because The Author Guy essentially just says that the discussion here can’t be trusted in anyway. That anything here is deceptive. That what you, Tizzy, spouted is just lies. The whole thing is one big prank. What are we going to do when what we are discussing earnestly turns out to be just crap? Hmmm?

    As for truthful information, then, if The Author guy is correct, that is something that we shouldn’t expect from you. Why discuss something with you when it will not be of any truth anyway?

    And no science and religion don’t work that way. Science is about studying the world. It is not about choosing what to and what not to believe. The truth is out there, you just have to observe and study it. Religion is belief and worship of superpowers (god, deties). It is also not about choosing what to and what not to believe. It already has sets of beliefs that you had to accept if you follow that religion. And stories, that is just a different beast entirely.

    A discussion however is different. It has to be based solidly for it to go sensibly. If we are discussing like: that earth is really flat instead of being round, or cats are dogs in disguise, you are just wasting your time.

    And… Uhhh… what to believe now.

    #1811
    Tizzy
    Member

    Actually, science does work that way.

    Evidence is given to you, you have to examine it and see how the pieces fit together, formulate a theory and then test it, collect more evidence and revise it. Repeat forever.

    That is what the Scientific Method is. That’s why people talk about “Scientific Theories” and not “Scientific Facts” Scientific knowledge is not handed to us on a silver platter, it must be ferreted out and tested for veracity, repeat-ability and one must see what can then extrapolate to make predictions on, and test those predictions. It’s often wrong, and subject to revision…science is a process of continual revision of what we know. At any point in time what lay people call “scientific fact” is simply the best theory/estimate that the scientific method has produced at a particular point in time.

    In this case, what the author guy is talking about is that like in a trial, the readers are presented with various pieces of evidence, including testimony, the jury (reader) has to determine what to trust, whose testimony is credible and whose is not. All characters and participants have a point of view, a story to tell, “their side” it is your job as reader/jury to evaluate the testimony and evidence you are given and come up with a theory as to what has really happened.

    Same with all those CSI TV shows: Forensic Science as we know it: the police don’t usually “know what happened” they have evidence and maybe some stories from various people, but they have to put it together, the police and prosecution then put together a theory and they test it and tweak it and then present it to the jury for them to determine “the facts of the case”

    it’s the job the jury to determine the facts of the case and render a decision as to culpability of the defendant.

    The books, this site have pieces of evidence and T-A-G, Lenamare, Wylan and myself are giving you testimony.

    You have to put all the pieces together to solve a puzzle.

    But again, let me reassure you, I’ve been at this for millenia, I know what I am talking about. You can just trust everything I say as 100% true. Ignore that very disreputable T-A-G

    T-A-G is just trying to unnerve you. he’s the real demon….

    #1812
    Korwin
    Member

    [quote=Rosver;950]And the reason for why I want to leave is because The Author Guy essentially just says that the discussion here can’t be trusted in anyway. That anything here is deceptive. That what you, Tizzy, spouted is just lies. The whole thing is one big prank. What are we going to do when what we are discussing earnestly turns out to be just crap? Hmmm?
    [/quote]Also don’t forget, an Author is allowed to change his mind!
    At least while the book is not published. [-x
    What if he wrote himself in an corner in book 2, should he not be allowed to change anything in book 2, because of an forum post?

    #1813

    I definitely agree with that.

    I’m very good at writing myself into a corner…

    However, to restate my point: Tizzy, Wylan and other characters, when they post here, it’s no different than a reader posting. Albeit a reader that happens to live in either Astlan or the Abyss, which gives them more knowledge than the typical reader. They are stating their own opinions and beliefs, based on their knowledge.

    I am not saying they are necessarily lying (although we all know demons do that) but they may not have all the information. None of the characters are omniscient (not even the gods in the book(s)).

    In other words, Tizzy’s answers are not to be considered ‘ex-cathedra’ he is not infallible, he is not omniscent nor omnipresent, he’s a person and he can be wrong.

    The only person that can speak, or maybe/might possibly speak ‘ex-cathera’ is me. And I will try very hard not to speak about the plot/history/background in that manner due to a) spoilers and b) writing myself into a corner.

    #1815
    Tizzy
    Member

    Scientific Method and science, don’t confuse the two?

    You do know that doesn’t make any sense to me? Science is defined by the Scientific Method. Period. If a field of study doesn’t use the scientific method, it’s not science, by definition. In fact, those “sciences” that get hand wavy with the scientific method are called the ‘soft science” in particular because they are soft on the use of the scientific method. Hard Sciences are hard because they apply the Scientific method rigorously. Physics, Chemistry, Biology and most of their sub disciplines. Most psychology and social sciences as well as archaeology are considered soft, typically because there are too many unknowns to rigorously apply the scientific method, so they get as close as they can.

    There is no such thing as science fact. There is empirical evidence, which is by definition measurable and repeatedly measurable under the same conditions, but that is not a fact.

    One of the [i][b]very few[/b][/i] things that T-A-G told me that made any sense (from him) was the following:

    [quote]When I was in grad school for lo those many years, we had a saying:

    You go to college and you study really hard.
    Once you are done studying and you feel you know everything, they give you a Bachelor’s degree.
    You then study some more, do some more digging,
    When you realize that “Maybe I don’t know everything.” They give you a Master’s degree.
    You then work your butt off pursuing what you realized you didn’t understand when you got your Master’s degree.
    When you finally realize that you know absolutely nothing…then they give you a Ph.D.
    [/quote]

    Also, I know a lot about my anatomy, other demons have different anatomies. I have made a concerted effort to study the anatomies of willing female demons, but unfortunately, that is not very many. Like Freud I have a very limited sample set.

    The non-quoted content on this site are excerpts from books in the Council Library. If those books are correct, then the information is correct. Things like the Aetos have wings and live in the mountains is generally factualy, although I suppose there might be one or two to be found in a city on the plains.

    Writing on the Calendar and Astrology, that’s generally accepted fact that someone has written, there isn’t much disagreement on this.

    But when it comes to speculating on the number demon princes, archdemons, the concordenax, or how the various planes interact? Those documents are by sages that have been studying and thinking about it. But there isn’t a huge body of empirical evidence to back this stuff up.

    So anyway, stuff in the Library is stuff Maelen/Tom found in the Council Library etc Maybe they aren’t the best books, or there are newer or better ones out there somewhere else.

    Stuff that I say, is stuff that I say, it’s what I know to be true based upon my experiences, and while I have never EVER been wrong about ANYTHING, I am only demon, and it is theoretically possible that I may at some point in the far distant future say something that is “technically” inaccurate.

    #1816
    Rosver
    Member

    [quote]Science is defined by the Scientific Method[/quote]

    Huh? This is a strong misconception. Though the scientific method is a sort of holly grail for scientist it does not define science. They are not one and the same.

    Soft science, Hard science… so you can already see that scientific method isn’t a catch all in science. You do actually understand the nature of science and scientific method. You already have the knowledge. I can’t see why you don’t get my point about scientific method if you already know this.

    Scientific fact and empirical evidence… and we are not discussing this. Why would you put such a red herring? Oh! Of course you’re a demon! So frustrating.

    #1817
    Tizzy
    Member

    ???

    How exactly do you define science, if not through the use of the scientific method?

    The scientific method is a method for studying observable phenomenon, measuring, quantifying, developing theories, testing theories with predictions and comparing results of future measurements to predicted measurements and then revising the theory.

    That is science…that’s the definition. What do you call science?

    And why I am bring it up is because we were talking about mutable reality, and whether “facts” are subject to revision or correction.

    Here is a “Scientific Fact” that I can torture you with:

    In the 1980’s, students taking classes in Astrophysics would have learned the “fact” that the observable universe was about 18 billion years old, 17-18B years.

    Now today, you would expect that the current generation of such students would be taught the observable universe is 17 to 18 billion years old, plus 30 years.

    However, they are instead given the “scientific fact” that the universe is really around 13 to 14 billion years old!!!

    How is the universe getting younger, while the rest of us are getting older?

    Well–obviously, it wasn’t the universe’s age that changed, it was human’s measurement techniques and their theories and estimates of the expansion of the universe.

    So…my point is…I don’t believe in “Scientific Facts” there are no facts in science. There is simply empirically measurable evidence.

    When the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence (as in certain courts of law) points to a particular conclusion, then people generally accept that conclusion of as a “fact.”

    See “Global Warming” as a text book case for what I am talking about.

    However, if the evidence changes, then the “facts” can change. Like the age of the universe.

    Now that makes determining “facts” rather difficult, and this is what I think you don’t like.

    But I will say, that while determining “facts” is difficult, determining “non-facts” is pretty easy. It’s much easier to rule out possibilities than to settle on a single truth.

    Earth scientists may not be exactly sure on the age of the Earth. But they do know for a “fact” that it is NOT 5,000+ years old. There is a more than overwhelming preponderance of evidence and extremely well tested theory to categorically disprove the idea that the Earth is 5,000 years old.

    How old it really is, can be a matter of some debate, but we have narrowed it down and excluded a lot of ages. 1) It’s not older than the Universe, 2) It’s not older than the Sun–probably–not if current accretion models of planetary development hold and 3) It’s definitely a lot more than a billion years.

    Most likely 4.5 billion give or take.

    [i][u][b]So anyway…you shouldn’t freak out about things on this website not being “hard facts” When you get to the core of reality (at the Quantum level) there are very few immutable facts. Reality is how we measure it, how we perceive it. Perceptions can change…
    [/b][/u][/i]

    PS

    You know that bit about the universe being 13 to 14 billion years old?

    Nah, that’s a bad measurement. It’s really 17.8695468 or so billion years old.

    After all, I do know (roughly) how old I am.

    :d/

    #1818

    :^o Liar!
    [-x Foul beast of hell!
    [-( I should not even read your stupid posts!!!!!

    [color=red][b]:-# HOW DARE YOU SAY THERE ARE NO IMMUTABLE FACTS??????
    :-# THE LAW IS TRUE
    :-# THE LAW IS IMMUTABLE AND ALMOST UNCHANGING [/b](It does grow, of course)
    :-# I[i][b] simply can’t believe you would spout such heresy demon![/b][/i][/color]

    Clearly you and your foul kind deserve the fate that awaits you at the hands of the Law of Oorstemoth!
    I can’t reveal our plans, but rest assured, you shall not escape the law and HIGH JUSTICE by fleeing to the Abyss.
    [color=orange][size=7][b]We won’t chase you to the “Gates of Hell” We shall follow you right through those damned gates!!![/b][/size][/color]

    #1819
    Rosver
    Member

    [quote]How exactly do you define science, if not through the use of the scientific method?.[/quote]

    Just a little google would came up with a lot of difinitions of science and non of them pin it to scientific method. In fact the body of science has existed before scientific method is developed (around 17th century). Aristotle, Galileo, Copernicus, and other wellknown people of science exist long before that.

    Of course you can’t disqualify such things as the three states of mater (solid, liquid, gas), organic and inorganic, properties of metal, and other scientific stuff which have been known and understood since prehistory which enable them to create such things as the pyramids, clocks, firecrackers, medicine, clothing and other stuff.

    Scientific method have been a break through, a revolutionary development in science but never for once think scientific method need to exist for science to be born.

    [quote]The scientific method is a method for studying observable phenomenon, measuring, quantifying, developing theories, testing theories with predictions and comparing results of future measurements to predicted measurements and then revising the theory[/quote]

    You define scientific method but again we are discusing science not scientific method. Please stop pulling this straw man at me.

    And my point about scientific facts is… this is not what we are arguing. What your point about it can be debated but since I had made no stance about it, I can just choose to agree with you and be done with it. I really have no interest in following this red herring.

    #1820
    Tizzy
    Member

    OK, I give up.

    #1821
    Tizzy
    Member

    Ok,

    No I don’t.

    Wikipedia “the scientific method”

    First paragraph:

    The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as “[i][b]a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century[/b][/i], consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[3]

    From the Overview

    [i][b]The scientific method is the process by which science is carried out.[/b][/i][10] Science builds on previous knowledge, and this can lead to improvements and refinements over time.[11] The scientific method can function in the same way,[12][13] meaning that it can become more effective at understanding, and even generating new knowledge.[14][15] For example, the concept of falsification (first proposed in 1934) formalizes the attempt to disprove hypotheses rather than prove them.[16]

    This model can be seen to underlay the scientific revolution.[17] One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of forming questions and subsequently testing them,[18] an approach which was advocated by Galileo in 1638 with the publication of Two New Sciences.[19] The current method is based on a hypothetico-deductive model[20] formulated in the 20th century, although it has undergone significant revision since first proposed (for a more formal discussion, see below).

    You can see from above that the rudiments of the “Scientific Method” go back well over a thousand years.

    [color=darkred][size=6]The whole point of this red herring is that you said that “Science doesn’t work by comparing pieces of evidence compiling that with adds up, setting aside that which doesn’t and making comparative judgements on various pieces of evidence and drawing a conclusion as to the nature of what is correct and what is incorrect.”

    That is what science does. It’s the exact same thing that the author was asking you to do in judging the content of this site. Not all of it is going to match up, some of it may be wrong. That does not ipso facto disqualify the site and any reason to visit it. Your job with the site and the book is to draw your own conclusions as to the nature of reality…or at least the book’s reality.[/size][/color]

    [color=blue]And incidentally, that is basically what Wizardry tries to do with animagic. Although, since animagic is much more squishy than physics, I’d argue that Wizardy might be called a semi-soft science. But it does manage to create a systematic method for dealing with mana and animus that is repeatable and [i]mostly[/i] reliable.[/color]

    #1823
    Tizzy
    Member

    You shouldn’t listen to T-A-G; as I’ve said he can’t be trusted.

    I’m the friendly one who talks to everyone, he just goes around being a big know it all, and barely bothers to grace us with his presence.

    I swear to Lillith, oh wait, she wants to kill me, I swear to Sammael, T-A-G has a bigger ego than Tiernon.

    I never lie to my friends…

    We are friends yes? You, me, Boggy, Tom, Rupert, Gastrope’, Jenn, Antefalken, Maelen…wow…I think that’s the most friends I’ve had in the last two thousand years, at least!

    [-o<

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 163 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.