|
Post by Destecado on Jun 15, 2004 9:33:22 GMT -5
During the discussion of the nature of the Phenomenon at the Heart of the Sector many concepts have come up that have, in my mind at least. called into question how we define the abilities of a psyker in the 40k universe.
I have recently re-read Necromancer (part of the Childe Cycle) by Gordon R. Dickson. In it Dickson describese reality or at least objective reality as being an illusion (see excerpt below)
The objective universe can be expressed in its lowest common denominator as an accumulation of identity isolates, both living and non-living. The isolates in order to live - that is to have function along the single dimension of the time line must pass in and out of combinations which we call sets.
The sets in order to create the illusion of reality in objective time and space must at all times arrange themselves into a single pattern. the pattern may vary, but it can not be abandoned or destroyed without destroying or abandoning the illusion of reality.
Altering the pattern of the objective universe therefore would temporarily allow actions not ordinarily permitted by the illusion of reality to become possible.
Granted your typical psyker might not recognize this on the personal level, but when they work their powers, they are temporarily suspending the natural laws in their general vacinity. This would also help to explain the area of effect of certain changes.
The inertia of objective reality would be pressing back to stop such changes from being possible. this might also lead to back lash for using higher level abilities. Are there any differing views on how a psykers powers work in the 40k universe?
|
|
|
Post by KeirLeslie on Jun 15, 2004 17:40:52 GMT -5
This gave me an idea about psykers According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics particles are only in one place when you observe them. The rest of the time they could be there or there or there. They could be anywhere but the overwhelming probability is that they will be in the same place they were before. This leads to the idea that they could be anywhere. What the psyker does is he stops the universe from "looking" then lets it "look" at just the right time. Say he wanted to move a spoon. He'd stop the univerese from "looking" then let it "look" again when the particles in the spoon are three metersaway from where they started.
This is very undevolped but I thought I'd post it and see what the others thought.
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on Jun 17, 2004 6:23:53 GMT -5
I think I understand exactly what you are trying to say. what you are describing is Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. It deals with measuring the velocity and position of particles in Quantum Mechanics. What it states is that the more accurate the measurement of one, the less accurate the measurment of the other. If you measure the velocity of a particle exactly, then the uncertainty of its position is infinte.
Its actually funny that you should bring up this concept. Gordon Dickson uses this very principle as the basis for the FTL (Faster than Light) drive system used by ships in his novels.
|
|
|
Post by Dazo on Jul 11, 2004 10:09:19 GMT -5
Is this not also similar to the navigators in dune, i do like the idea of travelling without moving
I like to subscribe to the theory that their maybe an infinite number of parallel universes and that electrons exist in more than one at any given moment, or are at least able to cross over/into these alternate realities, so for me psykers are able to effectivly choose the reality they want and trasplant it from another universe which fits the desired pattern the psyker wishes to employ in this universe. Too far fetched?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 11, 2004 21:43:27 GMT -5
I know this may sound strange, but is it necessary to define psykers? Truly? We know that they 'channel warp energy' to achieve a given effect. We know that because of this they are more susceptible to daemonic influence... &c. There is very little inconsistency with the representation of psykers except in the specific description of what they do... some tend to approach it is magic, others as 'psionics'. What advantage is there, at this point, in doing this? (I ask merely to put this in context... I'm more than willing to discuss this feature from how I view things... )
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on Jul 12, 2004 11:22:23 GMT -5
For the overal Anargo Project....no, the true nature of psykers does not need to be defined. I was merely useing this to help focus the framework of the nature of the warp and of the 40k universe. I wanted to see what opinions other memebrs might have of how psykers work.
Of those that answered (thanks to those who did), it seems that we are working pretty much on the same basis of how it is done. Of course this is soely for working out the wrinkles in the higher concepts. The psykers abilities could be viewed as manipulating the fundamental energies of the universe, reaching out and pulling the potential result of the situation out of some alternate reality to match his needs or simply a matter of personal will or magic....it matters little.
That said, I would like to hear your opinions on psykers.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 12, 2004 23:36:21 GMT -5
Explaining it in terms of 'sets' of parallel dimensions, universes, or whatever, doesn't cut it for me. Again I point out that using scientific method can be useful, but using scientific laws to define some features might be... taking a step too far.
From the 'fluff' we know that psykers draw energy from the 'warp' and it is this energy, coupled with their 'will' and the 'gift' that allows them to generate effects within the matterium that might not otherwise be possible within the boundaries of matterium-physics. We also know that this 'warp energy' is not necessarily 'Chaos-infected', though it can be...
So this 'alternate reality' is, by consistent definition, the warp. Yes, there is some lattitude depending on your intepretation (e.g. while the energy is derived from the energetic regions of the warp, it ultimately derives from consensual determination, i.e. upper manifold... but that's me), but extending this to "quantum" parallel universes might be going a shade too far in direct application here. Furthermore, grand theories derived from this might be subject to the same argument...
Every single explanation of 'magic' - sorry, psykers - that I've seen which rely on reference to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, or quantum mechanics, have come off as... shallow. The imposition of physics over magic, rather than the suspension of disbelief with regards to magic. Yes, I'll tend to use "pseudo-science" as inspiration, but again I point out that there is a fine line... The genre is sci-fantasy and, as such, should live up to the 'sci' side of things, yes, but one must not over-ride the 'fantasy'.
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on Jul 16, 2004 6:09:02 GMT -5
Explaining it in terms of 'sets' of parallel dimensions, universes, or whatever, doesn't cut it for me. Again I point out that using scientific method can be useful, but using scientific laws to define some features might be... taking a step too far. I see no problem with defining the warp less scientifically. Actually what about defining the warp or how psykers tap into it more as a form of feng shui? If not tapping into the warp it allows them to see the patterns of energy (currents). It could also be defned in much the same manner of the Force from Star Wars....from the first movies, before force sensativity was about having bugs in the blood (metichlorines) From the 'fluff' we know that psykers draw energy from the 'warp' and it is this energy, coupled with their 'will' and the 'gift' that allows them to generate effects within the matterium that might not otherwise be possible within the boundaries of matterium-physics. We also know that this 'warp energy' is not necessarily 'Chaos-infected', though it can be... Again the "Chaos Infected" warp might be put down as the negative [yin] chi of a culture. Would you say that the Psycher only manipulates the energy or must the energy pass through him in order to be directed by his will? So this 'alternate reality' is, by consistent definition, the warp. Yes, there is some lattitude depending on your intepretation (e.g. while the energy is derived from the energetic regions of the warp, it ultimately derives from consensual determination, i.e. upper manifold... but that's me), but extending this to "quantum" parallel universes might be going a shade too far in direct application here. Furthermore, grand theories derived from this might be subject to the same argument... I'll try a less scientific description of the warp it is the region that exists between the void and realites. Unlike the void, which is formless, the energy in the warp is effected by the reality near which it lies. The minds of those within the reality shape and twist it as do their emotions and conscious thoughts. It bends and flows. These half dreamed beings and realities often fade back into the flow of energy when the dreamer awakes, others take on a reality of their own. Some are even able to cross over into the reality that spawned them. This goes with the idea of man dreaming demons into existance. Is this perhaps a better explanation of the warp? Every single explanation of 'magic' - sorry, psykers - that I've seen which rely on reference to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, or quantum mechanics, have come off as... shallow. The imposition of physics over magic, rather than the suspension of disbelief with regards to magic. Yes, I'll tend to use "pseudo-science" as inspiration, but again I point out that there is a fine line... The genre is sci-fantasy and, as such, should live up to the 'sci' side of things, yes, but one must not over-ride the 'fantasy'. The wish to discount science and fully embrace fantasy can be seen as shallow as well. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle though science also has fundamental phylosophical undertones. It shows that what we consider reality is an illusion. I agree for the purposes of the 40k Universe, we should offer up an explanation that has mystical overtones, but I still think we need to first define the concepts scientifically if for no other reason than to have it clear in our own minds and for working on other concepts. What many people consider magic is just something for which they have no conception or logical explanation. Many of the things we take for granted in our every day life would have only a couple of generations ago been considered miraculous or magic. Maybe I just don't have a religious bone in my body, but I have never been willing to take things on faith. I have always sought out a logical explanation.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 16, 2004 12:50:44 GMT -5
I see no problem with defining the warp less scientifically. I'm rather saying that we should not look to science as defining the only pool of inspiration that we draw from. Consider taking inspiration from the magic - or psionic - systems of other games and seeing how the 'internal logic' of those play out as extended to the 40k universe, for example. It could also be defned in much the same manner of the Force from Star Wars... Is not the 40k universe slightly more morally relative than at least the metaphysics of Star Wars (or tao, if you will... )? from the first movies, before force sensativity was about having bugs in the blood (metichlorines) <grin> Thought that it was "midichlorians" myself, but there we go... Again the "Chaos Infected" warp might be put down as the negative [yin] chi of a culture. I'd have to read upon it, but yin would strike me more as an intepretation, or at least awareness of the 'dark side' and not strictly the 'canker' that Chaos supposedly is. Indeed, this would contradict the above statement about increased 'moral relativity' of the universe, perhaps. There is, seemingly, very definitely an 'evil' in the 40k universe. Though this is not really balanced by a 'light side'... Would you say that the Psycher only manipulates the energy or must the energy pass through him in order to be directed by his will? That's up for debate. Energy is described as being 'focused' through the psyker, but whether that means channelling the warp directly through the body is up for grabs. It is suggested that the warp is channelled through 'force rods', however... And I'm reminded of the Earthdawn concept of the 'taint' to astral space, for some reason! I'll try a less scientific description of the warp... My comments were only because it has been pointed out to me that other people are not entirely comfortable with the overtly scientific approach to the warp... that is all. Remember: I'm a scientist. I like science. Is this perhaps a better explanation of the warp? Well, it's not entirely consistent with my interpretation, but there we go... I broadly agree with it! The wish to discount science and fully embrace fantasy can be seen as shallow as well. Yes, but note that is more a question of the focus of interpretation rather than the utilisation of scientific concepts and the over-arching approach behind science itself. It shows that what we consider reality is an illusion. I've actually never thought about it in those terms. Strange considering I left the physics discipline because they didn't want to 'play' with other subjects. ...but I still think we need to first define the concepts scientifically... I would once again suggest that we define the concepts rigorously and consistently, using either science or 'magical concepts' as our focus and preclude neither. We should cover our hand-waving, as it were, from both sides of the fence. My point, as it has been from the start, is that we should not let one dominate over the other. Maybe I just don't have a religious bone in my body, but I have never been willing to take things on faith. I have always sought out a logical explanation. Considering I broke up with my last partner because she considered me 'not religious enough', I hear 'ya...
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jul 17, 2004 5:05:00 GMT -5
The Heisenberg interpretation is fascinating and creative, but I'm afraid I don't buy it.
Even though you're letting an object manifest at a different point (for example) the focus of that object is still exactly where it was - you haven't done anything to change the universe i.e. move things around.
You could make something 'virtually' there; but as soon as you let it be again, it'll snap back to where it was.
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on Jul 17, 2004 6:24:19 GMT -5
The Heisenberg interpretation is fascinating and creative, but I'm afraid I don't buy it. Even though you're letting an object manifest at a different point (for example) the focus of that object is still exactly where it was - you haven't done anything to change the universe i.e. move things around. You could make something 'virtually' there; but as soon as you let it be again, it'll snap back to where it was. Sojourner, if you could perhaps better explain what you mean by an object. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle deals with Quantum Mechanics. In the macroscopic world (what we preceive as reality) it is possible to measure the velocity and position of an object (macroscopic object) with almost infinite precision. In a quantum world, things become more tricky. Neither can be measured precisely. The act of measuring disturbs the system being measure, creating uncertainty (where the priciple dervies its name) of the precise location or velocity. Such a disturbance happens in the macroscopic as well, but due to the difference in scales the uncertainty is below our ability to recognize or measure. As we proceed further up the scale from the macroscopic to the Relative world (using the theory of realtivity) uncertainty again begins to creep in. In this case it is the relative motion of an object with reguards to an observer. Let us now consider the interrelationship between the quantum and the macroscopic. A macroscopic object, be it a rock a building or a ship, are all made up of subatomic particles. If you looked at any of them on the subatomic level, they would look pretty much the same. Broken down to its most basic structure, every object is a combination of particles and energy. If you can manipulate this energy, then you should therefore be able to shape it in any manner that you see fit or move it. This is defining the macroscopic world in terms of quantum interactions...in essence, Quantum Cosmology in its simplest terms. Sorry Kage, I know that I said I would try to define it in a less scientific manner, but I had to address the misconceptions about the uncertainty principle.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jul 17, 2004 8:17:16 GMT -5
I understand all about the uncertainty principle.
You're the one who referred to an 'object', not I.
|
|
|
Post by Destecado on Jul 20, 2004 3:42:04 GMT -5
I understand all about the uncertainty principle. You're the one who referred to an 'object', not I. I apologize for I misunderstood, but based on your previous post, it did not appear that you understood the principle. If you understand about the uncertainty principle, please elaborate on why you discount it or let us know your own theory on how a psyker's powers work.
|
|
|
Post by Sojourner on Jul 26, 2004 21:40:12 GMT -5
I don't have a good explanation - I'd just put it down to magic *waves hands*
Though the 'holographic universe' theory is a possibility. I use the word 'theory' tentatively because at the moment it's all a load of mumbo-jumbo with no actual findings, but basically it says that the universe isn't a defined space containing some number of distinct entities, but in fact is infinitely interconnected and manifests as it does as a representation of its microstructure - that is, every part of the universe, however small, contains the entire representation of the universe - much like a hologram.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Jul 27, 2004 1:16:36 GMT -5
Yep, the Holographic Idea would be more apt... and I'm sure Kant (fairly sur that it was him) would be rolling around in pleasure knowing that something he threw out actually has some validity to it beyond philosophy! Well, if you believe the idea, that is.
|
|