is magic all-knowing?

[Fitz10019]

In another thread, someone commented that Prestidigitation cannot be used to make something taste like Elf flesh, unless the caster knows that taste from experience. That seems reasonable, but sometimes magic is treated as all-knowing. For instance, Hide from Undead ends when you attack a creature that is undead, whether or not you or the caster knows that this creature is undead.

Has anyone else knocked this around or set guidelines for it?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

In another thread, someone commented that Prestidigitation cannot be used to make something taste like Elf flesh, unless the caster knows that taste from experience. That seems reasonable, but sometimes magic is treated as all-knowing. For instance, Hide from Undead ends when you attack a creature that is undead, whether or not you or the caster knows that this creature is undead.
Well, hide from undead already has some sensor that lets it track other creature types without directly telling the subject or caster anyway. That is, that guy you don’t know is a vampire is going to be affected by hide from undead to begin with. So I don’t think that’s a good example.

What you really need is another spell with an effect entirely under the caster’s direction that would do something similar.

So is the guy in your example throwing a dinner party for some gnolls or something? Don’t see how else he could tell if his prestidigitation succeeded otherwise. :smalltongue:

[Eloel]

Contingency doesn't (shouldn't) allow you to have a trigger 'if I'd die without this triggering in one round'.

So, not all-knowing.

[Grelna the Blue]

The first example involves creating a sensory experience. Whether that sensory experience is illusory or a real alteration, the nature of the interaction involved would not automatically dispel it.

The second example involves a spell that acts like an illusion (even though it isn't) of a very specific sort. It ends automatically because as soon as the affected creature attacks, it interacts with the Undead in a way that automatically dispels the semblance of harmlessness/unimportance the spell creates. The knowledge of the caster is irrelevant in this instance. It is the knowledge of the undead creature in question that matters.

[Fitz10019]

So is the guy in your example throwing a dinner party for some gnolls or something? Don’t see how else he could tell if his prestidigitation succeeded otherwise. :smalltongue:

Bulettes refuse to eat Elves, and dislike the taste of dwarves. I know, I know, it seems too much like Batman's shark repellant.


What you really need is another spell with an effect entirely under the caster’s direction that would do something similar.

Protection from Evil? It discriminates independently of the caster's knowledge.

[Comet]

Evil is a cosmic force acting through individuals. Magic knows this.

I'd say that magic is, indeed, all knowing. The problem is that you tap into this all knowing force with your own will and through your own perceptions, so you have to know the effect you are going for. "Protect me from Evil" is okay, since both you and magic know what Evil is and magic can automatically act against anything that is touched by such a metaphysical label.
Same thing with the undead. They are composed of a certain sort of energy, which magic can automatically act against on command.

"Make me taste like elf" is harder, since "elf" isn't a taste. Elves just happen to have a certain taste to them, if even that, but you don't know what taste is associated with elves. You can't bring a thing into reality through willpower if you don't know what that thing is. Sure, magic might know, but it only does what you ask it to, nothing more and nothing less.

That's how I see it, at least.

[Psyren]

Magic isn't ALL-knowing. I'll post the example I used in the other thread in response to that question.


A figment that includes audible effects cannot duplicate intelligible speech unless the spell description specifically says it can. If intelligible speech is possible, it must be in a language you can speak. If you try to duplicate a language you cannot speak, the image produces gibberish. Likewise, you cannot make a visual copy of something unless you know what it looks like.

If magic truly was all-knowing, neither of the bolded restrictions would apply.

However, the amount of information a spell does have access to can suprise you. To respond to ozgun:


Triggers for contingent spells are usually events that happen to the bearer of the spell, and can include death, contracting disease, exposure to a breath weapon or to energy damage, falling, exposure to poison, exposure to a dangerous environment (trapped by fire, plunged underwater, and so forth), succumbing to sleep or fear effects, gaining negative levels, or being rendered helpless, deafened, or blinded.

Several of those conditions are things the caster himself could not be aware of, e.g. becoming helpless, unconscious (sleep), death or contracting disease. So in that respect, magic has access to more information than the caster himself does.

tl;dr there are some things magic doesn't know, but it isn't necessarily restricted to knowledge the caster himself has. (In fact, in the case of divinations, it can't be restricted to the caster's knowledge - that would defeat the whole purpose.)

[Gamer Girl]

Magic is not all knowing the way you make it out to be. Magic does not 'know' things, but it's a force that reacts a set way to things, items and events.

For example, if you cast charm person on a dog, the spell fails. The charm person spell does not 'know' you cast it on a dog, the spell simply does not work. It's a lot like, if you put gasoline on a fire it burns, but gasoline does not know it's flammable.

[Shadowleaf]

Magic is not all knowing the way you make it out to be. Magic does not 'know' things, but it's a force that reacts a set way to things, items and events.

For example, if you cast charm person on a dog, the spell fails. The charm person spell does not 'know' you cast it on a dog, the spell simply does not work. It's a lot like, if you put gasoline on a fire it burns, but gasoline does not know it's flammable.
Exactly. Magic can be viewed as the fifth (or sixth, depending on your milage) element. It knows about as much as water or earth does.

[Psyren]

Not to highlight my own posts or anything, but I want to point out what I said earlier - while magic certainly doesn't know everything, it is inaccurate to say that it knows nothing.

A contingent spell can fire even while its creator is completely unaware or incapable of manually triggering it - while he is asleep or blind, for instance - it does not rely on the wizard's senses. The magic itself must therefore be able to distinguish some things on its own; it "knows" something.

(Certainly, it "knows" more than water or earth.)

[Shhalahr Windrider]

A contingent spell can fire even while its creator is completely unaware or incapable of manually triggering it - while he is asleep or blind, for instance - it does not rely on the wizard's senses. The magic itself must therefore be able to distinguish some things on its own; it "knows" something.
But that doesn’t mean it “knows” anything. Just that it detects the appropriate condition.

In all these examples, including protection from evil, it’s a matter of the spell being little more than a highly-specific detector and a program to run when activated. It’s like a smoke detector. It doesn’t know there’s a fire. It simply detects a change in air temperature and composition and starts to ring.

[Halae]

I'd say that magic has something of an animal intellect, capable of distinguishing things and acting on those based on the orders given to it, but beyond that is unable to act. after all, in the above examples, it's attempting to make you taste like your perception of how an elf tastes, because that is what it was ordered to do. this also works for the contingency

[Psyren]

But that doesn’t mean it “knows” anything. Just that it detects the appropriate condition.

I agree, but that's still more than "water or earth" are capable of doing.

And then there's divinations - in the absence of a deity or other outsider, where do arcane ones get their information? Say, a spell like Legend Lore or Vision.

Also, who or what grants/interprets Wish?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I agree, but that's still more than "water or earth" are capable of doing.
Right. A spell is more like a machine or computer program, depending on the exact spell. Point is they don’t know anything, they just react as built/programmed.


And then there's divinations - in the absence of a deity or other outsider, where do arcane ones get their information? Say, a spell like Legend Lore or Vision.
Most divinations are flavored in a way that implies they simply detect the impressions of objects/people/events in the time-space continuum or some such. Such a spell in that case could be likened to a telescope or camera.


Also, who or what grants/interprets Wish?
The Caster. No need for a third party. The Caster simply reshapes reality. The myriad twists that people like to put on powerful wishes can simply be explained by the butterfly effect. Reality is complex, and the causality involved in reshaping it is not immediately visible, even to a 20th level wizard.

[Psyren]

Most divinations are flavored in a way that implies they simply detect the impressions of objects/people/events in the time-space continuum or some such. Such a spell in that case could be likened to a telescope or camera.


A telescope or camera can record information, but they cannot assign meaning. How does a Vision know what to show you when you ask for something? Your camera can take pictures, but it doesn't know which pictures contain your children and which don't unless you tell it.



The Caster. No need for a third party.

The magic IS the third party. If Wish is all internal, why do you have to speak your desire then?

[Weezer]

A telescope or camera can record information, but they cannot assign meaning. How does a Vision know what to show you when you ask for something? Your camera can take pictures, but it doesn't know which pictures contain your children and which don't unless you tell it.


I like to think of magic as a computer, it reacts to things, and can distinguish between things, but does it actually know things? No.

[Psyren]

I like to think of magic as a computer, it reacts to things, and can distinguish between things, but does it actually know things? No.

Even a computer cannot assign meaning on its own; it takes an operator to do that. Meaning is the most important part of divinations. This is easily explained with divine magic, but less so with arcane.

[Shadowleaf]

Even a computer cannot assign meaning on its own; it takes an operator to do that. Meaning is the most important part of divinations. This is easily explained with divine magic, but less so with arcane.I love the computer analogy. It makes this easier:

How does divination do anything without being guided / 'programmed' by the caster?

Vision says: This spell functions like legend lore, except that it works more quickly but produces some strain on you. You pose a question about some person, place, or object, then cast the spell.(...)

You tell magic what you need to know through the question - you input the command. Magic then finds the correct data for you.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

A telescope or camera can record information, but they cannot assign meaning. How does a Vision know what to show you when you ask for something? Your camera can take pictures, but it doesn't know which pictures contain your children and which don't unless you tell it.
The spell doesn’t tell you the meaning. It allows the caster to discern the meaning. Much as I can take see a picture of my nephew and discern the meaning as being a picture of my nephew.


The magic IS the third party. If Wish is all internal, why do you have to speak your desire then?
“Speaking your desire” is the interface. Not all that different from high-tech voice recognition software.

[aquaticrna]

the computer analogy is a good one... i always imaged it as magic acting it as a sort of meta-material, your spell crafts it into a "shape" that has certain properties the depend only on its shape. So just like water has certain properties that respond to interaction in predictable ways, like surface tension, your spell has certain properties like repulse evil energy, or explode

[Endarire]

Yes, unless the effect says otherwise.

[Psyren]

The spell doesn’t tell you the meaning. It allows the caster to discern the meaning. Much as I can take see a picture of my nephew and discern the meaning as being a picture of my nephew.

That's not what I said at all.

Vision is more like telling your camera "show me a picture of my nephew" and the camera obliging - by finding a picture of your nephew.

If you don't pre-program the camera and let it know which pictures contain your nephew and which don't, how will it know what to show you?

[olentu]

That's not what I said at all.

Vision is more like telling your camera "show me a picture of my nephew" and the camera obliging - by finding a picture of your nephew.

If you don't pre-program the camera and let it know which pictures contain your nephew and which don't, how will it know what to show you?

Facial recognition software.

[Psyren]

Facial recognition software.

That would help a camera find pictures that contain faces. It would still need to know what your nephew's face looks like.

[olentu]

That would help a camera find pictures that contain faces. It would still need to know what your nephew's face looks like.

Which is where the question comes in.

[Psyren]

Which is where the question comes in.

So you admit the camera would need knowledge of its own then?
The question provides no information allowing the camera to distinguish my nephew from any other face in its files.

[aquaticrna]

So you admit the camera would need knowledge of its own then?
The question provides no information allowing the camera to distinguish my nephew from any other face in its files.

Given that its magic there could be some other way that you're defining "nephew." In your head the information you're communicating when you say nephew is really "the son of person x who is also descended from parent y" so it has a lot more to search with than just how they look

[Psyren]

its magic

I was waiting for that defense...

[Shadowleaf]

So you admit the camera would need knowledge of its own then?
The question provides no information allowing the camera to distinguish my nephew from any other face in its files.Uhm.. The question does do exactly that. A name, for example. If you say "Bob", the spell doesn't know whether or not it's Bob the King or Bob the Baker. It'll most likely pick whoever's closest/whoever has the smallest or biggest amount of knowledge connected to them/whoever of them has the more magic items, or any other factor us non-Wizards don't understand.

Heck, the spell might include a somatic component which allows you to project your thoughts as guidelines for the spell - it just isn't explained in the spell description because it would take up too much space. It doesn't say what hand gestures you have to do, either.

[Hanuman]

In another thread, someone commented that Prestidigitation cannot be used to make something taste like Elf flesh, unless the caster knows that taste from experience. That seems reasonable, but sometimes magic is treated as all-knowing. For instance, Hide from Undead ends when you attack a creature that is undead, whether or not you or the caster knows that this creature is undead.

Has anyone else knocked this around or set guidelines for it?
Where does it say it can taste like elf flesh? I thought it was just taste bad.

And the effects wear off in an hour, so one would assume it's not a "real" change.

[Psyren]

Uhm.. The question does do exactly that. A name, for example. If you say "Bob", the spell doesn't know whether or not it's Bob the King or Bob the Baker. It'll most likely pick whoever's closest/whoever has the smallest or biggest amount of knowledge connected to them/whoever of them has the more magic items, or any other factor us non-Wizards don't understand.

Heck, the spell might include a somatic component which allows you to project your thoughts as guidelines for the spell - it just isn't explained in the spell description because it would take up too much space. It doesn't say what hand gestures you have to do, either.

How does the spell distinguish between "Bob the King and Bob the Baker" if it doesn't know anything?

"Mights" and "coulds" get us nowhere. The fact is that the spell works and doesn't specify what verbal and somatic components exactly it needs to function.

For all you know, it could require the exact same hand motion and words no matter who I am looking for information on. The only restriction on the spell is notability (i.e. the level floor.) But level is a metagame concept, i.e. one my wizard could not possibly know. Therefore, the only actor that could make such a distinction is the spell itself.

[olentu]

So you admit the camera would need knowledge of its own then?
The question provides no information allowing the camera to distinguish my nephew from any other face in its files.

Er which spell specifically are we talking about here.

Edit: And I do mean specifically since I find it hard to say just what a spell can and can not do if I do not know what spell it actually is.

[Shadowleaf]

How does the spell distinguish between "Bob the King and Bob the Baker" if it doesn't know anything?

"Mights" and "coulds" get us nowhere. The fact is that the spell works and doesn't specify what exactly it needs to function.

For all you know, it could require the exact same hand motion and words no matter who I am looking for information on. The only restriction on the spell is notability (i.e. the level floor.) But level is a metagame concept, i.e. one my wizard could not possibly know. Therefore, the only actor that could make such a distinction is the spell itself.How does a computer distinguish between Tetris and Minesweeper? I fail to see how you cannot draw parallels. A computer doesn't actually know anything (it doesn't understand the information it contains), it is mearly a method of data storage. Likewise, magic doesn't actually know anything, but it can still hold knowledge/power/whatever.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Vision is more like telling your camera "show me a picture of my nephew" and the camera obliging - by finding a picture of your nephew.
Funny, I’ve been doing just that with iPhoto. All it needs is a few pictures of my nephew properly labeled as such. Then when I ask for more pictures of my nephew, it goes through all my other photos, comparing them to the ones I have labeled, and returns those that seem like a good match. It doesn’t “know” anything about my nephew, it just looks for patterns that I tell it belong to my nephew.

Now consider what it would be like if vision behaved just like iPhoto, with a picture of every possible target of the spell from every moment it ever existed, all properly labeled by whatever imprints are made on the fabric of the universe by that target. Pretty much the same but only more.

Anyway, a number of the things magic can do would fall into “Sufficiently Advanced” territory. So even if you find something that cannot be directly compared to extant programs or other techology

[Psyren]

Er which spell specifically are we talking about here.

Edit: And I do mean specifically since I find it hard to say just what a spell can and can not do if I do not know what spell it actually is.

Almost any arcane divination really, but Vision in this specific instance. (I also used Contingency earlier in the thread.)


Funny, I’ve been doing just that with iPhoto. All it needs is a few pictures of my nephew properly labeled as such.

You're missing my point. Who labelled them? The spell works from the very first time I use it, without needing "pre-labelling," or even "trial and error."

[Shadowleaf]

You're missing my point. Who labelled them? The spell works from the very first time I use it, without needing "pre-labelling," or even "trial and error."Almost all settings have a God(dess) of Magic. I'm pretty sure s/he sets the perimiters on Magic, dictates how it works, what knowledge to 'absorb', what not to absorb, and so forth.

[Psyren]

Almost all settings have a God(dess) of Magic. I'm pretty sure s/he sets the perimiters on Magic, dictates how it works, what knowledge to 'absorb', what not to absorb, and so forth.

What about the ones that don't? Arcane magic needs no god(dess) to function. It's supposed to be a set of fundamental rules to the universe, not granted by a deity.

[olentu]

Almost any arcane divination really, but Vision in this specific instance. (I also used Contingency earlier in the thread.)

This spell functions like legend lore, except that it works more quickly but produces some strain on you.

Legend lore brings to your mind legends about an important person, place, or thing.

So being a legend it is likely categorized in the memories of the people who created the legend as to who or what it pertains to. I mean it is a bit hard to make a legend about something or someone without any knowledge (even secondhand, thirdhand, etc. knowledge) of the thing or person the legend is about.

[true_shinken]

What about the ones that don't? Arcane magic needs no god(dess) to function. It's supposed to be a set of fundamental rules to the universe, not granted by a deity.
Then the guy who created the spell coded it, of course. Someone has to create those spells, anyway.

[Shadowleaf]

What about the ones that don't? Arcane magic needs no god(dess) to function. It's supposed to be a set of fundamental rules to the universe, not granted by a deity.Well, I guess that's like asking who set the laws of Physics in the real world. Maybe that's just how magic works - it functions in set, logical ways that we as non-spellcaster simply cannot grasp, because it's magic and therefore not something we can relate to.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

You're missing my point. Who labelled them? The spell works from the very first time I use it, without needing "pre-labelling," or even "trial and error."
Okay, say I put pictures of my nephew up on the Internet. Now I tell my Dad, who’s never seen these pictures before, and he puts my nephew’s name in Google Image Search.

Boom!

He got pictures of my Nephew without ever having to pre-label the image himself. It’s just a matter of having the right database.

Now, let’s go back to vision: Who labeled Bob McFighterson? Why everyone who saw him walking down the street and said, “Hiya, Bob McFighternson! How’s the wife and kids?” That leaves an imprint in the fabric of the universethat can be traced with vision.

The above form of labeling, by the way, is much how Google Page Rank takes into account inbound links to certain pages.

So, yeah, magic is the ultimate search engine, and reality is its database.

[Psyren]

Then the guy who created the spell coded it, of course. Someone has to create those spells, anyway.

What if I'm the one who made it? How can it then find information I myself don't know?



So being a legend it is likely categorized in the memories of the people who created the legend as to who or what it pertains to. I mean it is a bit hard to make a legend about something or someone without any knowledge (even secondhand, thirdhand, etc. knowledge) of the thing or person the legend is about.

"These may be legends that are still current, legends that have been forgotten, or even information that has never been generally known."


Okay, say I put pictures of my nephew up on the Internet. Now I tell my Dad, who’s never seen these pictures before, and he puts my nephew’s name in Google Image Search.

Boom!

He got pictures of my Nephew without ever having to pre-label the image himself. It’s just a matter of having the right database.

Someone (i.e. you) would first have to tag those pictures with your nephew's name, otherwise Google will never connect the two.

EDIT: I understand that "it's magic" is an answer we will keep coming back to, but that doesn't exactly invalidate the "magic knows some things" claim.

[olentu]

What if I'm the one who made it? How can it then find information I myself don't know?



"These may be legends that are still current, legends that have been forgotten, or even information that has never been generally known."

Yet no information that has never been known is listed. Do you have a problem with the spell being able to view the past or something.

[Psyren]

Yet no information that has never been known is listed.Do you have a problem with the spell being able to view the past or something.

The qualifier "generally" is ambiguous. It could mean both "it can locate information that was not available to anyone" or "it can locate information so long as at least one person was aware of it."

[olentu]

The qualifier "generally" is ambiguous. It could mean both "it can locate information that was not available to anyone" or "it can locate information so long as at least one person was aware of it."

Er either way at least one person knew the legend and that is all that matters.

[true_shinken]

What if I'm the one who made it? How can it then find information I myself don't know?

OK, so you are correct if you are in a setting with no god of magic (and I know no published ones), if you are in setting where there is no god behind the primal forces of reality (again, I don't know any) and if your character is the one to create the spell.

[Shadowleaf]

The qualifier "generally" is ambiguous. It could mean both "it can locate information that was not available to anyone" or "it can locate information so long as at least one person was aware of it."I think it's pretty clear. I'd read it as "Information that has never been known to a large amount of people."

Heck, it might even reference to information that was never really pieced together: The King's birthday is in the year 1211, on the 24th day of the 3rd month. No one knows this - not even the King - but his mother knows it was the year of 1211, his brother knows it was the 24th day of some month, and the local barkeep knows it was the 3rd month. The spell then puts these pieces of information together and gives it back to you.

[Psyren]

OK, so you are correct if you are in a setting with no god of magic (and I know no published ones), if you are in setting where there is no god behind the primal forces of reality (again, I don't know any) and if your character is the one to create the spell.

The SRD has no setting, but the spell is assumed to work anyway. Even divine magic doesn't need deities.


Er either way at least one person knew the legend and that is all that matters.

Actually, the first way nobody knew the information.


I think it's pretty clear. I'd read it as "Information that has never been known to a large amount of people."

Heck, it might even reference to information that was never really pieced together: The King's birthday is in the year 1211, on the 24th day of the 3rd month. No one knows this - not even the King - but his mother knows it was the year of 1211, his brother knows it was the 24th day of some month, and the local barkeep knows it was the 3rd month. The spell then puts these pieces of information together and gives it back to you.

The spell itself does not specify any of that. It's all plausible, sure, but not exclusive.

[olentu]

Actually, the first way nobody knew the information.

Oh I thought that said everyone. However if no one knows it it would seem that it can not be considered a legend. The legend restriction from the earlier part of the spell is still in play and restricts the information to only legends.

[Shadowleaf]

The SRD has no setting, but the spell is assumed to work anyway. Even divine magic doesn't need deities.



Actually, the first way nobody knew the information.



The spell itself does not specify any of that. It's all plausible, sure, but not exclusive.SRD is a rules website, it does not deal with fluff. Therefore, it has no place in a strictly fluff discussion. Rules wise, you can always just say "Magic works because a rule/DM says so" - not much to argue with there.

leg·end (ljnd)
n.
1.
a. An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical.
b. A body or collection of such stories.
c. A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times.


If no one never knew it, it was not a legend. It is therefore not an elligible target for the spell, and therefore the spell description obviously does not intended for 'generally' to be read this way.

[true_shinken]

The SRD has no setting, but the spell is assumed to work anyway. Even divine magic doesn't need deities.
Oh, c'mon, Psyren. The SRD is not a setting. It needs one for the game to work. How is that an argument, really? You can do better than that.

[Psyren]

Oh, c'mon, Psyren. The SRD is not a setting. It needs one for the game to work. How is that an argument, really? You can do better than that.

Okay, so I make a setting with no deities but with fully functioning arcane magic. My wizard then invents Legend Lore or a spell with similar function.

Rebuttal?


Oh I thought that said everyone. However if no one knows it it would seem that it can not be considered a legend. The legend restriction from the earlier part of the spell is still in play and restricts the information to only legends.

That part actually says "information" not "legend."

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Someone (i.e. you) would first have to tag those pictures with your nephew's name, otherwise Google will never connect the two.
Midwife: It’s a boy, Mrs. Fighterson! A Boy!
Mrs. McFighterson: A boy? Well, I think I will call him Robert. Hello, little Bobbie. How are you? I’m your mother…

And thus has Bob McFighterson been “Tagged” in the the Fabric of Reality.

[Swooper]

I'd argue that when you cast vision, asking it to show you "your nephew", the input to the spell isn't actually just the phrase "my nephew", it is everything you know about him, which the spell can use to disambiguate him from other individuals. Magic doesn't know things, but it will understand what you mean perfectly (in most cases anyway - Wish goes precisely by the phrasing for instance).

[olentu]

Okay, so I make a setting with no deities but with fully functioning arcane magic. My wizard then invents Legend Lore or a spell with similar function.

Rebuttal?



That part actually says "information" not "legend."

Er yes but as per the spell what it does do is "brings legends (if any) about the person, place, or things to your mind."

While these "may be legends that are still current, legends that have been forgotten, or even information that has never been generally known" they are still legends as per the sentence describing exactly what the spell does.

If both rules can be followed both rules must be followed or one is breaking the rules. Thus if the information is not a legend that is breaking the rules and rather makes discussion meaningless.

[Shadowleaf]

Okay, so I make a setting with no deities but with fully functioning arcane magic. My wizard then invents Legend Lore or a spell with similar function.

Rebuttal?



That part actually says "information" not "legend."Everyone - both dead, living and born in the future, gives memories, thoughts, ideas, legends and information to the universe. The spell can interact with this knowledge and bring it to you.
How would this work? Information from the brain is simply copy pasted into abstract places like 'Time' or 'History'. The spell is just a Search Engine for this database of knowledge. All it needs is the right keywords.


Midwife: It’s a boy, Mrs. Fighterson! A Boy!
Mrs. McFighterson: A boy? Well, I think I will call him Robert. Hello, little Bobbie. How are you? I’m your mother…

And thus has Bob McFighterson been “Tagged” in the the Fabric of Reality.
Exactly this.

[true_shinken]

Okay, so I make a setting with no deities but with fully functioning arcane magic. My wizard then invents Legend Lore or a spell with similar function.

Rebuttal?

No rebuttal. As I already said, in that niche situation, you are correct. But it's a very specific niche.

[Psyren]

If both rules can be followed both rules must be followed or one is breaking the rules. Thus if the information is not a legend that is breaking the rules and rather makes discussion meaningless.

You would be right, but for the use of "or."

"I can have apples or oranges," means I can have apples without having oranges.

"It can be legends or information," means I can have information without having legends.

[olentu]

You would be right, but for the use of "or."

"I can have apples or oranges," means I can have apples without having oranges.

"It can be legends or information," means I can have information without having legends.

Er no the spell never says it brings information in general it only says it brings legends. The spell then describes what these legends may be but that does not mean that they are not still legends.

[Psyren]

Er no the spell never says it brings information in general it only says it brings legends. The spell then describes what these legends may be but that does not mean that they are not still legends.

It's clear we're not reading it the same way, so lets agree to disagree.

How about Scrying? You can, RAW, look for someone about whom you have no knowledge and have never seen before.

[olentu]

It's clear we're not reading it the same way, so lets agree to disagree.

How about Scrying? You can, RAW, look for someone about whom you have no knowledge and have never seen before.

"You must have some sort of connection to a creature you have no knowledge of."

So clearly there must be some linking between you and the subject.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

How about Scrying? You can, RAW, look for someone about whom you have no knowledge and have never seen before.
Even if what olentu said wasn’t there: That’s still covered by the “Fabric of Reality as the ultimate Google Database” analogy. If all I got is a name, I can still pump it into Google and get information.

[Psyren]

"You must have some sort of connection to a creature you have no knowledge of."

So clearly there must be some linking between you and the subject.

Some guy torched my house. No idea who and nobody saw who did it. We're connected now because he burned up all my stuff.

[olentu]

Some guy torched my house. No idea who and nobody saw who did it. We're connected now because he burned up all my stuff.

Did he sense himself doing it.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Some guy torched my house. No idea who and nobody saw who did it. We're connected now because he burned up all my stuff.
And that leaves another sort of traceable imprint on the Fabric of Reality. Though in this case it might be more like footprints in the snow than a search database. Being Sufficiently Advanced, magic can be flexible like that.

[Psyren]

Did he see himself do it.

Not necessarily. He flipped his cigarette under my azalea bush without realizing and walked away. So even he doesn't know.


Even if what olentu said wasn’t there: That’s still covered by the “Fabric of Reality as the ultimate Google Database” analogy. If all I got is a name, I can still pump it into Google and get information.

The trouble with databases - if nobody categorizes the information, they are useless. So who did it?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

The trouble with databases - if nobody categorizes the information, they are useless. So who did it?
That’s what spider-crawlers are for:


Now, let’s go back to vision: Who labeled Bob McFighterson? Why everyone who saw him walking down the street and said, “Hiya, Bob McFighternson! How’s the wife and kids?” That leaves an imprint in the fabric of the universethat can be traced with vision.

The above form of labeling, by the way, is much how Google Page Rank takes into account inbound links to certain pages.


Midwife: It’s a boy, Mrs. Fighterson! A Boy!
Mrs. McFighterson: A boy? Well, I think I will call him Robert. Hello, little Bobbie. How are you? I’m your mother…

And thus has Bob McFighterson been “Tagged” in the the Fabric of Reality.

The Fabric of Reality is always watching, listening, and indexing.

(And I mean “watching” and “listening” in the same metaphorical sense that Google’s web-crawlers “read” a webpage. For, my whole point is that neither Magic nor the Fabric of Reality are necessarily beings capable of such actions.)

[olentu]

Not necessarily. He flipped his cigarette under my azalea bush without realizing and walked away. So even he doesn't know.



The trouble with databases - if nobody categorizes the information, they are useless. So who did it?

The fire was in his possession at some time. Seeing as how the owners of possessions in D&D leave psychic imprints on them that can be read I do not see the problem here.

Edit: Also this


That’s what spider-crawlers are for:





The Fabric of Reality is always watching, listening, and indexing.

(And I mean “watching” and “listening” in the same metaphorical sense that Google’s web-crawlers “read” a webpage. For, my whole point is that neither Magic nor the Fabric of Reality are necessarily beings capable of such actions.)

[Psyren]

So the "Fabric of Reality" knows and is able to distinguish/link the information, but magic itself isn't? What's the difference? Is magic not part of reality?

[olentu]

So the "Fabric of Reality" knows and is able to distinguish/link the information, but magic itself isn't? What's the difference? Is magic not part of reality?

Er it is. You give the spell a set of parameters and the spell being programmed to respond to all manner of parameters proceeds by seeking out a specific set of stimuli that match a template for the given parameters. Then after running an algorithm to determine the best match based on another programmed set of rules the spell returns a result.

[Weezer]

So the "Fabric of Reality" knows and is able to distinguish/link the information, but magic itself isn't? What's the difference? Is magic not part of reality?
Just because magic is a part of reality doesn't mean it has every attribute of reality.

[Psyren]

No, but it still needs enough reality i.e. knowledge, to distinguish one thing from another.

RE: Google spiders - like cameras, they can record information but not index it or give it meaning, without something with knowledge providing that meaning. Bob the Fighter got his meaning from his mother, but she herself got that meaning from elsewhere, to know that Bob is a name you give to a male child. If we trace that all the way back to the origin of reality, where did the first name come from? If a deity, where did they come from? It's a chicken and egg scenario.

It doesn't stop there either. Appraising Touch - how does the spell know what 50% of an item's value is if the spell itself has no knowledge? Know Vulnerabilities - how does the spell identify weaknesses even if you yourself have no idea what the creature is?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

So the "Fabric of Reality" knows and is able to distinguish/link the information, but magic itself isn't? What's the difference? Is magic not part of reality?
No. The Fabric of Reality knows no more than the earth knows what created the footprint is in a particular patch of mud. But the Fabric of Reality and the earth can both be read by those with the right knowledge and tools.


RE: Google spiders - like cameras, they can record information but not index it or give it meaning, without something with knowledge providing that meaning. Bob the Fighter got his meaning from his mother, but she herself got that meaning from elsewhere, to know that Bob is a name you give to a male child. If we trace that all the way back to the origin of reality, where did the first name come from?
From the first being capable of bestowing a name.

And though names are often considered to be quite powerful forms of magic, they aren’t necessarily required to make a particular imprint on the Fabric of Reality. Even nameless things leave an imprint, though those imprints are harder to follow.


If a deity, where did they come from?
That depends on your campaign mythology.


It doesn't stop there either. Appraising Touch - how does the spell know what 50% of an item's value is if the spell itself has no knowledge?
It’s just Magical Blue Book. People assigning an object value leaves its own imprints, readable with this particular spell.


Know Vulnerabilities - how does the spell identify weaknesses even if you yourself have no idea what the creature is?
The creature has its own imprints on the Fabric, which are readable with that particular spell. You don’t need to know what the creature is called when the thing making the impressions is right in front of you.

This is still all just database searches.

[Psyren]

That depends on your campaign mythology.

That's just it - arcane magic works regardless of mythology. It's like math; no matter what universe you're in, 2+2=4; a=b, b=c ∴ a=c etc.

This does not need people to be true; it simply is.



It’s just Magical Blue Book. People assigning an object value leaves its own imprints, readable with this particular spell.


And my question still is this: why does the spell still work if there are no people? Nothing in these spells states they need people to function.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

That's just it - arcane magic works regardless of mythology. It's like math; no matter what universe you're in, 2+2=4; a=b, b=c ∴ a=c etc.

This does not need people to be true; it simply is.
What’s that have to do with where deities came from?


And my question still is this: why does the spell still work if there are no people? Nothing in these spells states they need people to function.
Who’s casting the spell then?

[Psyren]

What’s that have to do with where deities came from?

I can design a setting without them, but with arcane magic, and the arcane spells will work perfectly.


Who’s casting the spell then?

If the knowledge came from me, why would I need divinations?

[Weezer]

And my question still is this: why does the spell still work if there are no people? Nothing in these spells states they need people to function.

If there are no people, then it has no value. Value is determined by people, thus no people, no value.


This is starting to seem like you don't want an answer. You've gotten a few logically sound answers and you keep dismissing them. It's an extremely simple answer, spells are like computer programs that look at the input (the whole world) and give you an output (whatever information you wanted, assuming we're still talking about divinations here). The program doesn't need to know anything itself, it just looks at input which is the only repository of knowledge.

[Gamer Girl]

But that doesn’t mean it “knows” anything. Just that it detects the appropriate condition.

Magic is just like technology in this way.

Most stores have automatic doors. When you approach the door, you break a beam and the door opens. The door or the beam does not 'know' anything, it's just all physics.

The same is true for motion sensors. You can set them on low movement, so they only go off if something human sized is detected, or you can set them on ultra high so that a leaf falling off a tree will set it off (true story)

[Gamer Girl]

Appraising Touch - how does the spell know what 50% of an item's value is if the spell itself has no knowledge? Know Vulnerabilities - how does the spell identify weaknesses even if you yourself have no idea what the creature is?

Appraising Touch--You could look at this like the internet. When I look at something and don't know if it's a good price, I can check it on my phone. My 'phone', or the spell does not know the price, but they can both find '50% of an item's value'. How does Appraising Touch do it exactly? That fluff is up to you. Maybe the magic 'taps' the unconscious of all life in the multiverse, at least the ones with the Appraising skill.

Know Vulnerabilities--Magic Google. Same idea. The knowledge of the Vulnerabilities does exist in several places in a multiverse, in the minds of creatures and books, for example. Know Vulnerabilities might just check the magic library of the goddess of magic or information, for another example.

[Psyren]

If there are no people, then it has no value. Value is determined by people, thus no people, no value.

That explains Touch of Appraisal, but not Legend Lore or Scrying or anything else I've mentioned.

And even for ToA, it doesn't take into account prices in different districts, I myself knowing nothing about an item's value etc.



This is starting to seem like you don't want an answer.

I already know the answer - magic is capable of providing information that does not have to be "known" by other living beings. I stated this on the very first page. All these subsequent arguments have done is affirm that position.

@ Gamer Girl - this nebulous "goddess of magic" implies that arcane magic is really just divine magic with a different coat of paint. I cannot accept that notion.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I can design a setting without them, but with arcane magic, and the arcane spells will work perfectly.
And? What have I said that implies deities are required for an object to make an imprint on the Fabric of Reality?


If the knowledge came from me, why would I need divinations?
That’s what you meant by “needing people”?

Well, I never said people were required for things to make their imprints. Objects and locations have their own imprints. It is, after all, the Fabric of Reality, not the Fabric of People.

However, some things cannot exist without people. Even abstracts, like monetary value, require a person to define them for them to even exist. As Weezer said, an object has no value unless there is a person who values it. (Though that does tend to get a little fuzzy given the typical D&D campaign’s tendency to ignore little things like Supply and Demand. But that’s best saved for another thread, I think.)


That explains Touch of Appraisal, but not Legend Lore or Scrying or anything else I've mentioned.
Well, we’ve already covered those.


And even for ToA, it doesn't take into account prices in different districts, I myself knowing nothing about an item's value etc.
Well, if you’re actually playing with differing markets, then you probably have to change the full crunch of the spell with that in mind anyway. As I said above, normal D&D economics tend not to keep that in mind.


I already know the answer - magic is capable of providing information that does not have to be "known" by other living beings.
Right, it provides information, like the Google Database. But, also like the Google Database, it does not actually “know” anything itself, for it is not a being capable of thought and knowledge.

[olentu]

Yeah I am going to ask just what your definition of know is. It seems like that is where the disagreement is.

[Gamer Girl]

this nebulous "goddess of magic" implies that arcane magic is really just divine magic with a different coat of paint. I cannot accept that notion.

Well, I use the Old 2E Planescape setting for my Multiverse. And that has the idea that all the outer planes are made of ideas, thoughts and belief. They are not physical places. When you go to the Abyss, for example, the rocks you see are not rocks..they are aspects of chunks of 'frozen in time' of chaotic evil thoughts, ideas and beliefs.

Each type a creature does an act, all the information of the act is transmuted to the outer planes and becomes the physicality of the plane.

This fits nicely with the idea that outsiders know things, including your deepest and darkest secrets. Lots of demons for example, spend time simply 'reading' the 'aspects of chunks of 'frozen in time' of chaotic evil thoughts, ideas and beliefs' hoping to learn something of value or importance.

[Psyren]

Yeah I am going to ask just what your definition of know is. It seems like that is where the disagreement is.

Magic is capable of providing information to the caster that was not stored within it by an external actor.

I am not disputing magic's ability to Read Reality. But being able to link particular aspects of reality with particular queries requires knowledge (there's that word again) that mere data retrieval cannot provide.

A face-recognition program CAN recognize my nephew - once I tell it what my nephew looks like once, so it knows what to look for.

Magic is capable of recognizing my nephew without that initial description.

That is the difference I am getting at.

[olentu]

Magic is capable of providing information to the caster that was not stored within it by an external actor.

I am not disputing magic's ability to Read Reality. But being able to link particular aspects of reality with particular queries requires knowledge (there's that word again) that mere data retrieval cannot provide.

A face-recognition program CAN recognize my nephew - once I tell it what my nephew looks like once, so it knows what to look for.

Magic is capable of recognizing my nephew without that initial description.

That is the difference I am getting at.

Er wait what spell are we talking about again.

[Psyren]

Er wait what spell are we talking about again.

*facedesk*

I'm going to bed...

[olentu]

*facedesk*

I'm going to bed...

Well I explained the legend lore thing and the scrying thing already so I do not see what spell that is being a problem.

[Psyren]

Well I explained the legend lore thing and the scrying thing already so I do not see what spell that is being a problem.

I recall us agreeing to disagree actually.

[olentu]

I recall us agreeing to disagree actually.

So is legend lore the only spell you are having a problem with because we can not agree on what the "These" is referring to. If not I still am wondering just what spell is the problem.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

I am not disputing magic's ability to Read Reality. But being able to link particular aspects of reality with particular queries requires knowledge (there's that word again) that mere data retrieval cannot provide.
Do you dispute that computers don’t actually know anything? Yet they are capable of making those links in the database just by shuffling a handful of electrons around.



A face-recognition program CAN recognize my nephew - once I tell it what my nephew looks like once, so it knows what to look for.
And my point is that as long as the relationship exists in reality, then your relationship is stored within reality by its very nature.


Magic is capable of recognizing my nephew without that initial description.
You don’t need to provide a description because Reality already provides it for you. That’s all.

[Psyren]

Do you dispute that computers don’t actually know anything? Yet they are capable of making those links in the database just by shuffling a handful of electrons around.

They need to be educated first. A computer cannot distinguish my nephew from other faces without me first teaching it what my nephew looks like. Magic can.


You don’t need to provide a description because Reality already provides it for you. That’s all.

But how does reality know which description of all the multitude of things it tracks relates to my query?

Furthermore, how is "reality knowing" different from "magic knowing?"

[Weezer]

They need to be educated first. A computer cannot distinguish my nephew from other faces without me first teaching it what my nephew looks like. Magic can.
But you do tell it what your nephew looks like. Divination spells require a description at munimum to find someone. So it's clearly a part of the spell that you somehow convey a description, most likely in the form of a mental image, of your subject, which is then used to find your subject in reality.

[bannable]

They need to be educated first. A computer cannot distinguish my nephew from other faces without me first teaching it what my nephew looks like.

Hmm, I'm not so sure about that.

The ability to distinguish individual faces is already present, so one could imagine a system in which a computer could attempt to identify traits common in a family. It may not be able to say precisely which genetic line the face came from, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine a computer capable of grouping different images by family and even person with some margin of error.

In fact, I'd bet there's some relevant thesis papers in the field of AI, but I'm not anywhere near familiar enough with the field to find them...

Edit: The trick would be to give the computer the ability to obtain the information on it's own. The information has to already exist in some form (or else you could not know it), and since it is known to exist it can be obtained.

[Psyren]

Hmm, I'm not so sure about that.

The ability to distinguish individual faces is already present, so one could imagine a system in which a computer could attempt to identify traits common in a family. It may not be able to say precisely which genetic line the face came from, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine a computer capable of grouping different images by family and even person with some margin of error.

In fact, I'd bet there's some relevant thesis papers in the field of AI, but I'm not anywhere near familiar enough with the field to find them...

My nephew doesn't have to look anything like me to be my nephew. Or the connection could be metaphysical rather than physical, e.g. searching for my adopted daughter.


But you do tell it what your nephew looks like. Divination spells require a description at munimum to find someone.

No they don't - Scrying works even if you have no idea what the subject looks like.



Edit: The trick would be to give the computer the ability to obtain the information on it's own. The information has to already exist in some form (or else you could not know it), and since it is known to exist it can be obtained.

Magic is capable of finding information unknown to any being. Whether it comes from Reality or magic at that point is irrelevant, as they are basically the same thing.

[olentu]

My nephew doesn't have to look anything like me to be my nephew. Or the connection could be metaphysical rather than physical, e.g. searching for my adopted daughter.

Er but then would not someone have to have decided that the two people were related and so the information does exist and is known by someone making your objection not apply.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

They need to be educated first. A computer cannot distinguish my nephew from other faces without me first teaching it what my nephew looks like. Magic can.
A computer cannot think, therefore it cannot be educated. It is a machine that stores stores and moves electrons. That is it. Any appearance of intelligence or knowledge is purely artificial. Hence the term Artificial Intelligence.


But how does reality know which description of all the multitude of things it tracks relates to my query?
Sufficiently Advanced algorithm bestows the appearance of such knowledge.


Furthermore, how is "reality knowing" different from "magic knowing?"
Neither knows anything. That’s my point.

For some reason, I’m feeling like the guys from Short Circuit (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091949/quotes?qt0434100).


No they don't - Scrying works even if you have no idea what the subject looks like.
But you do need to identify the subject in some fashion. If it’s identifiable, it can be found.


Magic is capable of finding information unknown to any being. Whether it comes from Reality or magic at that point is irrelevant, as they are basically the same thing.
Unless you actually are basing everything off a God(dess) of Magic, Magic is not a Being. Nor is Reality.

[Psyren]

Er but then would not someone have to have decided that the two people were related and so the information does exist and is known by someone making your objection not apply.

Sure someone did - me, by adopting her as my daughter. But I can do so (thus creating the connection) without knowing anything else about her. The magic must therefore supply the missing details to locate her.



Sufficiently Advanced algorithm bestows the appearance of such knowledge.


How is knowledge "appearing" any different from reality itself Knowing?

[bannable]

My nephew doesn't have to look anything like me to be my nephew. Or the connection could be metaphysical rather than physical, e.g. searching for my adopted daughter.

Indeed, but your nephew will look like his father and/or mother, one of which necessarily have an immediate connection to you: a father and/or mother.

If we are presuming that the act of obtaining the information is not the difficulty, I don't see the issue with the second either. This is, of course, starting to approach the dangerously philosophical subject of defining existence, but I'll press on. In the example of your adopted daughter a record of that relationship must exist somewhere, or it cannot be known to exist, and therefore is nonexistent as far as we are concerned.

--Edits below:


Magic is capable of finding information unknown to any being. Whether it comes from Reality or magic at that point is irrelevant, as they are basically the same thing.

That's my point, though. We are already presuming the information exists, and that it can be obtained from *somewhere*, so it is merely a question of ability.


A computer cannot think, therefore it cannot be educated. It is a machine that stores stores and moves electrons. That is it. Any appearance of intelligence or knowledge is purely artificial. Hence the term Artificial Intelligence.

Sufficiently Advanced algorithm bestows the appearance of such knowledge.


Is that so? If you are to speak so authoritatively, could you explain just what it is that makes a perfect imitation of sentience any different from sentience?

[Weezer]

No they don't - Scrying works even if you have no idea what the subject looks like.
The scry spell says ''You must have a connection to a creature you have no knowledge of''. You use this connection as a 'description' of sorts. For example if you have a lock of hair from someone you could find the person whose hair it is because the spell would use the description of 'the person with this hair' to find them.

[Psyren]

Indeed, but your nephew will look like his father and/or mother, one of which necessarily have an immediate connection to you: a father and/or mother.

That doesn't explain a non-blood relative e.g. adoption.


If we are presuming that the act of obtaining the information is not the difficulty, I don't see the issue with the second either. This is, of course, starting to approach the dangerously philosophical subject of defining existence, but I'll press on. In the example of your adopted daughter a record of that relationship must exist somewhere, or it cannot be known to exist, and therefore is nonexistent as far as we are concerned.

Such a connection can exist simply by being in my own mind. I consider her to be my daughter, thus when I cast the spell it works; the connection is there. It will in fact function even if I don't know what she looks like.


The scry spell says ''You must have a connection to a creature you have no knowledge of''. You use this connection as a 'description' of sorts. For example if you have a lock of hair from someone you could find the person whose hair it is because the spell would use the description of 'the person with this hair' to find them.

Nowhere in the spell description does it state the connection has to be physical. In fact, locks of hair are even listed separately from the "No knowledge" section.

[olentu]

That doesn't explain a non-blood relative e.g. adoption.



Such a connection can exist simply by being in my own mind. I consider her to be my daughter, thus when I cast the spell it works; the connection is there. It will in fact function even if I don't know what she looks like.



Nowhere in the spell description does it state the connection has to be physical. In fact, locks of hair are even listed separately from the "No knowledge" section.

Er so you know and thus someone know and thus the objection does again not apply.



However the connection thing is a good point. Since there are only a limited number of game defined connections anything else said to be a connection is technically a houserule.

[bannable]

That doesn't explain a non-blood relative e.g. adoption.

That is rather disingenuous, considering you quoted my argument to that immediately after.




Such a connection can exist simply by being in my own mind. I consider her to be my daughter, thus when I cast the spell it works; the connection is there. It will in fact function even if I don't know what she looks like.



Nowhere in the spell description does it state the connection has to be physical. In fact, locks of hair are even listed separately from the "No knowledge" section.

Nor did I ever state such a connection has to be physical. I don't think I understand what point you're attempting to argue here with me. Or are you agreeing?

[Shhalahr Windrider]

How is knowledge "appearing" any different from reality itself Knowing?
I can dress in hospital scrubs, but that doesn’t make me a surgeon. Things are not always as they appear.

[Psyren]

Er so you know and thus someone know and thus the objection does again not apply.

So the spell reads my mind to provide me with information I don't know? That makes no sense.


However the connection thing is a good point. Since there are only a limited number of game defined connections anything else said to be a connection is technically a houserule.

And where is the game definition of connection?



Nor did I ever state such a connection has to be physical. I don't think I understand what point you're attempting to argue here with me. Or are you agreeing?

That wasn't directed at you - please note that I am quoting and debating multiple posters here.


I can dress in hospital scrubs, but that doesn’t make me a surgeon. Things are not always as they appear.

So where does Reality's knowledge come from, if not Reality itself?
The spell itself is part of reality, therefore you have answered the main question of the thread.

[bannable]

I can dress in hospital scrubs, but that doesn’t make me a surgeon. Things are not always as they appear.

There is a difference here. You can be proven to not be a surgeon, by fact of not having the associated education.

Sentience is another beast entirely.

[olentu]

So the spell reads my mind to provide me with information I don't know? That makes no sense.



And where is the game definition of connection?



That wasn't directed at you - please note that I am quoting and debating multiple posters here.

Well either you adopted someone or you adopted no one. If someone your mind must have a set of acceptable parameters they fall under if not then you are not scrying on anyone.

The things in the table.

[bannable]

That wasn't directed at you - please note that I am quoting and debating multiple posters here.

Except that you appeared to be contradicting yourself in your own post. The information has to exist in some form - in some record - or it cannot be said to exist at all. Be it in a footprint in the dirt, a stirring of the dust, or the thoughts of a man, the information must actually exist to be found.

So, magic might find information unknown to any, but only because they do not have the tools or wherewithal to derive it.

[Psyren]

Except that you appeared to be contradicting yourself in your own post. The information has to exist in some form - in some record - or it cannot be said to exist at all. Be it in a footprint in the dirt, a stirring of the dust, or the thoughts of a man, the information must actually exist to be found.

So, magic might find information unknown to any, but only because they do not have the tools or wherewithal to derive it.

I know the information exists. My argument is that - if it exists in such a way that only magic can extract it (because other methods "do not have the tools or wherewithal to derive it" to use your phrasing) then functionally this is no different than the magic itself providing the information. The thread's main question is thus answered.

I also never said magic knows everything - just that it is capable of acquiring information inaccessible by any other means, including information unknowable by the caster.


Well either you adopted someone or you adopted no one. If someone your mind must have a set of acceptable parameters they fall under if not then you are not scrying on anyone.

The things in the table.

Right, that's where the connection comes from. And the connection is all I need for the spell to discover the rest and find the person - I don't need their appearance, description, location or anything else.

[olentu]

I know the information exists. My argument is that - if it exists in such a way that only magic can extract it (because other methods "do not have the tools or wherewithal to derive it" to use your phrasing) then functionally this is no different than the magic itself providing the information. The thread's main question is thus answered.

I also never said magic knows everything - just that it is capable of acquiring information inaccessible by any other means, including information unknowable by the caster.

Er but what does this have to do with magic knowing things. I mean a microscope sees (well provides visual information to me about) things I can not without technology but that does not mean the microscope knows things.

Er so like I said the spell searches for someone matching the parameters of stimuli and choice set by you and returns that person as a result. Nothing more than an advanced stimulus recognition type program.

Also table.

[bannable]

I know the information exists. My argument is that - if it exists in such a way that only magic can extract it (because other methods "do not have the tools or wherewithal to derive it" to use your phrasing) then functionally this is no different than the magic itself providing the information. The thread's main question is thus answered.

I also never said magic knows everything - just that it is capable of acquiring information inaccessible by any other means, including information unknowable by the caster.

I suppose we agree there, then. I do, however, still believe such ability can be modeled in a turing machine. As a hero of mine once said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

[Psyren]

Er but what does this have to do with magic knowing things. I mean a microscope sees (well provides visual information to me about) things I can not without technology but that does not mean the microscope knows things.

A microscope can show me things I cannot see. But a microscope can't know what I want to look at. I can't tell a microscope "zoom in on the bacterium, not the amoeba" and have it be able to distinguish the two.

Magic can do this.


Er so like I said the spell searches for someone matching the parameters of stimuli and choice set by you and returns that person as a result. Nothing more than an advanced stimulus recognition type program.

There is no program that can operate off such limited parameters without first being predefined by an actor or operator. However advanced the program, it still needs its variables declared at instantiation.

Magic does not, because the spell descriptions do not have such a requirement.


Also table.

I have no idea what this means :smallconfused:

[Daremonai]

A microscope can show me things I cannot see. But a microscope can't know what I want to look at. I can't tell a microscope "zoom in on the bacterium, not the amoeba" and have it be able to distinguish the two.

Magic can do this.


As could a computer-operated microscope with image recognition.



There is no program that can operate off such limited parameters without first being predefined by an actor or operator. However advanced the program, it still needs its variables declared at instantiation.

Magic does not, because the spell descriptions do not have such a requirement.


The argument being put forward several times in this thread is that the very existence of something influences Reality, thereby inserting records of itself into our metaphorical database. Once the record is there, it becomes searchable if you provide sufficiently a distinct description or set of keywords. As objects interact with the world (moving around, interacting with living creatures, etc) their record is updated by virtue of their influencing the "shape" of Reality. The database metaphor is sound, and requires no sentient agent.

The sufficiently advanced algorithm used to perform complex lookups is present as a part of reality - much like the database that stores all the object locations in a videogame. If it requires an agent to initialise it, then so does reality itself. From there, we get into creationism, which is a touchy subject on these boards, so I shall leave it there.

Finally, unless I am very much mistaken, "also table" is a reference to the table in the spell description for Scrying that contains definitions of what constitutes a connection - the metaphorical keywords with which you search our database.

[Psyren]

As could a computer-operated microscope with image recognition.

It can only recognize subsequent images after being pre-programmed with one initially. Magic does not have that requirement.



The argument being put forward several times in this thread is that the very existence of something influences Reality, thereby inserting records of itself into our metaphorical database.


Again, how is "reality knows" any different from "magic knows?" Each is as abstract and unquantifiable as the other.


Finally, unless I am very much mistaken, "also table" is a reference to the table in the spell description for Scrying that contains definitions of what constitutes a connection - the metaphorical keywords with which you search our database.

And what if I search for the likeness of someone who has a twin, or have a garment that has been worn by multiple individuals? Nothing in the spell description indicates such an act would fail or be misleading, beyond the Will save itself.

[Daremonai]

Again, how is "reality knows" any different from "magic knows?" Each is as abstract and unquantifiable as the other.


As briefly alluded to in my previous post, imagine if you will the metaphor of a videogame. In order for anything to exist in the videogame world, there must be data held somewhere detailing (a)what it is, and (b) where it is. This notional database does not describe the world, it is the world, and everything we perceive is merely an interpretation of that data. Divination spells simply interrogate the database directly, rather than using the filters of normal perception. If this metaphor is unsatisfactory, then I doubt I can provide an answer that you will accept.



And what if I search for the likeness of someone who has a twin, or have a garment that has been worn by multiple individuals? Nothing in the spell description indicates such an act would fail or be misleading, beyond the Will save itself.

Then you either have some other supplementary way of differentiating them from similar results, or you get exactly what you ask for. In the case of your garment, you're asking for "someone who has worn this robe", in which case you get someone who has worn that robe. If that is not the person you were attempting to scry on, then you clearly have other criteria in mind. If you *did* have other criteria in mind, then they too would be applied to the search, and you would target the individual you wanted. The metaphor continues to apply.

EDIT: misspelled "supplementary".

[Shadowleaf]

I love how it's just the same few things which keeps being discussed, just worded in a slightly different way.

Magic is not all-knowing. It is in fact not capable of knowledge, at it is not alive nor sentient. Magic can be paralleled with a computer - it contains and holds knowledge (or the universe does, for the sake of conversation), and it can be told to access this information in a certain way through spells. This is what causes the phenomenon Divining spells.

Who programmed this computer depends on the setting. It's either the God(dess) of Magic, the creator of the universe (and therefore also the creator of Magic), or maybe Magic was just always like that.

Spells work in ways incapable of being understood by non-spellcasting minds. Yes, a spell might read your mind in order to understand what exactly you want it to do. Yes, a spell might understand you meant Bob the King if you say Bob, this is not sentience nor intelligence - it's autospelling, which my Word program has as well. It's Magic for christ sake, it's weirld like that.

[bannable]

It is in fact not capable of knowledge, at it is not alive nor sentient.

This truism is not all that necessarily true. As argument, see my previous posts on the subject of sentience, and also (to a lesser extent, because of differences) the source material which was inspiration for 3.x's magic system Jack Vance's Dying Earth.

[Psyren]

The difference between knowledge and information is understanding - being able to apply the information in ways that have not been pre-defined by an external actor or operator.

Magic can do this, computers cannot. That is the main difference. I agree with all the other parallels between magic and an advanced computer system, but this is the one causing my disconnect.


As briefly alluded to in my previous post, imagine if you will the metaphor of a videogame. In order for anything to exist in the videogame world, there must be data held somewhere detailing (a)what it is, and (b) where it is. This notional database does not describe the world, it is the world, and everything we perceive is merely an interpretation of that data. Divination spells simply interrogate the database directly, rather than using the filters of normal perception. If this metaphor is unsatisfactory, then I doubt I can provide an answer that you will accept.

The above explanation leads to my problem of the video-game analogy. Arcane magic can exist without a deity or other operator. It's just the laws of the universe. A video-game can be created - but asking who created arcane magic is like asking who created math.


Then you either have some other supplementary way of differentiating them from similar results, or you get exactly what you ask for. In the case of your garment, you're asking for "someone who has worn this robe", in which case you get someone who has worn that robe. If that is not the person you were attempting to scry on, then you clearly have other criteria in mind.

Not so. The spell description requires me to have a connection, but does not say how that connection plays into the spell. I want to find someone - I know nothing else about them besides the fact that they wore a garment I hold in my hand at some point, and their name. Nothing states the spell will fail or be misleading if there are multiple wearers of that garment who share that name. By RAW, I have enough info to make the magic function - it does the rest.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

A video-game can be created - but asking who created arcane magic is like asking who created math.
Among many, many others: Hindus, Arabians, and Isaac Newton.

[Psyren]

Among many, many others: Hindus, Arabians, and Isaac Newton.

None of those groups/individuals created math. They may have discovered it, or devised new ways to apply it, but the fundamental laws of the universe predate any such actors/operators.

The law that one thing plus another thing equals two things was around before Isaac Newton.

[Weezer]

None of those groups/individuals created math. They may have discovered it, or devised new ways to apply it, but the fundamental laws of the universe predate any such actors/operators.

The law that one thing plus another thing equals two things was around before Isaac Newton.

With this I disagree, mathematical relations aren't a fundamental law, no more than F=ma is. They are human interpretations of the physical world and don't exist independent of humanity. Without some actor to have the concept of '2', '4', '+' and '=', then 2+2=4 does not exist. This is starting to stray into metaphysics and the philosophy of science and it seems we have a fundamental disconnect where those two disciplines are concerned that is the basis of our disagreement.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

None of those groups/individuals created math. They may have discovered it, or devised new ways to apply it, but the fundamental laws of the universe predate any such actors/operators.
What Weezer said.


The law that one thing plus another thing equals two things was around before Isaac Newton.
I’m talking about Calculus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus#Modern), man.

[Daremonai]

The above explanation leads to my problem of the video-game analogy. Arcane magic can exist without a deity or other operator. It's just the laws of the universe. A video-game can be created - but asking who created arcane magic is like asking who created math.

...if you accept that it's just as much part of the world as physics, why do you need someone to have created it? Nobody "created" physics - it works now in EXACTLY the same way as it did before Newton, et al. discovered a series of formulae with which to describe it - all that has happened is that a number of methods of taking advantage of said observations have been created.

Now read that sentence again, replacing "physics" with "magic", and "Newton" with "Mordenkainen", or whoever your setting's magical innovators were.

I'm really, really having difficulty seeing what the problem is here.


Not so. The spell description requires me to have a connection, but does not say how that connection plays into the spell. I want to find someone - I know nothing else about them besides the fact that they wore a garment I hold in my hand at some point, and their name. Nothing states the spell will fail or be misleading if there are multiple wearers of that garment who share that name. By RAW, I have enough info to make the magic function - it does the rest.

I agree entirely. If you know nothing else about them than the fact that they wore said garment and their name, and the spell shows you someone of that name who has worn said garment, how exactly is that misleading or a failure?

If you asked me to buy you a drink in a red can from the local store without specifying anything else, would you consider it misleading or a failure if I got a Dr Pepper instead of a Coke? You'd have gotten exactly what you asked for, and objectively that is a success. If your DM tells you about the Bob the BBEG instead of Bob the random NPC who had also worn your hypothetical garment, that's the DM's decision - nowhere in the spell description does it specify that's how it works.

[Ormur]

I agree with the OP that magic can provide information not just mere data, it can ascribe meaning and provide an accurate answer based on parametres that would too broad for computers.

A lot of the results based on subjective data from the caster's mind can be justified by the magic reading the caster's mind or in the case of wizards with them providing the info when preparing the spell or as a part of the algorithms in their spell books. However you can scry "the person that attacked me" regardless of what you know about it. It happened in my campaign, the person in question was even a shapeshifter, scry has no trouble with that.

This is perhaps the primary reason magic doesn't make sense in my mind while the breaking of (our) natural laws is to be expected. It's the possibility of achiving effects that only appear simple using subjective human language which actually require a lot of complex data from many sources or sometimes a sort of omniscience. In another thread it was pointed out that a spell that can sweep floors has to know a lot of things before achiving that simple task. In that case the knowledge could be provide by most humans but in the case of scry and some other divinations subjective information no human necessarily knows is compiled in the casting of the spell. Reality must be sentient in a sense. This raises all sorts of interesting epistemological questions.

[Psyren]

With this I disagree, mathematical relations aren't a fundamental law, no more than F=ma is. They are human interpretations of the physical world and don't exist independent of humanity. Without some actor to have the concept of '2', '4', '+' and '=', then 2+2=4 does not exist. This is starting to stray into metaphysics and the philosophy of science and it seems we have a fundamental disconnect where those two disciplines are concerned that is the basis of our disagreement.

Indeed, we can agree to disagree here (because I definitely think mathematical relationships exist independent of humanity to quantify them.)

Which means we should probably agree to disagree on the whole topic if the fundamentals are causing disconnect.


I’m talking about Calculus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus#Modern), man.

Some aspects of arcane magic (e.g. wizardry) can be compared to calculus, sure. But not all of them. (e.g. sorcerery.)



Now read that sentence again, replacing "physics" with "magic", and "Newton" with "Mordenkainen", or whoever your setting's magical innovators were.

I'm really, really having difficulty seeing what the problem is here.

The problem is simple. If *I* am Mordenkainen, and therefore I "invented magic," logically that magic should be restricted to what I myself know. Divinations, by their very nature, are not; neither is Contingency.



I agree entirely. If you know nothing else about them than the fact that they wore said garment and their name, and the spell shows you someone of that name who has worn said garment, how exactly is that misleading or a failure?

If you asked me to buy you a drink in a red can from the local store without specifying anything else, would you consider it misleading or a failure if I got a Dr Pepper instead of a Coke?

You are not a magic spell. That's the problem.
Nothing in the spell description says "if you are not specific enough, you may get a misleading result." It says you need a connection, and to beat a will save; that's it.

[Weezer]

Indeed, we can agree to disagree here (because I definitely think mathematical relationships exist independent of humanity to quantify them.)

Which means we should probably agree to disagree on the whole topic if the fundamentals are causing disconnect.

Yup, we probably should. It's been an enjoyable discussion.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Some aspects of arcane magic (e.g. wizardry) can be compared to calculus, sure. But not all of them. (e.g. sorcerery.)
Sorcerers still need to study it to use it. It’s just a different type of studying than wizard do.


The problem is simple. If *I* am Mordenkainen, and therefore I "invented magic," logically that magic should be restricted to what I myself know. Divinations, by their very nature, are not; neither is Contingency.
That’s a bit like saying the guys who invented Google have to personally know every single website it ever indexed.



You are not a magic spell. That's the problem.
Nothing in the spell description says "if you are not specific enough, you may get a misleading result." It says you need a connection, and to beat a will save; that's it.
And if you have a connection, the spell follows that connection.

[Psyren]

Yup, we probably should. It's been an enjoyable discussion.

I agree :smallsmile:


Sorcerers still need to study it to use it. It’s just a different type of studying than wizard do.

Right, i.e. not calculus.


That’s a bit like saying the guys who invented Google have to personally know every single website it ever indexed.

They need to know what is a website and what is not a website, in order to educate their spiders.

The spiders cannot discover this on their own, just like my camera cannot distinguish my nephew on its own.


And if you have a connection, the spell follows that connection.

That is a plausible assumption, but still an assumption.

{Scrubbed}

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Right, i.e. not calculus.
So it’s trigonometry instead. Same concept applies.


They need to know what is a website and what is not a website, in order to educate their spiders.
Spiders are machines. They cannot be educated except in the most base metaphorical sense.

That said, spiders are the least “educated” part of the whole search engine process. They just follow links and send them back to the database server. It’s the search and ranking algorithms that require faux-intelligence.

And to place where we are going with this in our increaingly-overextended metaphor:
[list]
Fabric of Reality: The Database. Holds all the information.
Magic: A complex program that can access the database. Serves as an intermediary between spells and the Fabric of Reality.
Spells: Individual, highly-specific algorithms that can be run by spell casters[/quote]

There are no spiders because it the Fabric of Reality already contains everything that ever was, is, or might be.


That is a plausible assumption, but still an assumption.
What else would the connection be for, then, other than some rules-arbitrary limit on the spell?

[Fitz10019]

This has been a fun ride!

So, debaters, please indulge me with your answer to the starting point...

Can Prestidigitation flavor 1 lb of food (oatmeal?) to taste like something that the caster has never eaten (smelled, heard described, read a recipe for, etc.)?

[Psyren]

Can Prestidigitation flavor 1 lb of food (oatmeal?) to taste like something that the caster has never eaten (smelled, heard described, read a recipe for, etc.)?

To that one I said no, citing the similar case of making a figment/glamer speak a language unknown to the caster (the image produces gibberish instead.)


So it’s trigonometry instead. Same concept applies.

It really doesn't. For sorcerers, warlocks etc. - it's a matter of will, not understanding. They don't need to understand to make it work.


Spiders are machines. They cannot be educated except in the most base metaphorical sense.

Conditioned, then. You still need that initial "this is the difference between what you're looking for and what you're not looking for" session, that magic does not require.


There are no spiders because it the Fabric of Reality already contains everything that ever was, is, or might be.

So how does it know which of those things to return as query results if magic itself doesn't know, and no deity was around to teach it?


What else would the connection be for, then, other than some rules-arbitrary limit on the spell?

Magic often has arbitrary restrictions; understanding them is not necessary for it to function.

[Susano-wo]

This has been a fun ride!

So, debaters, please indulge me with your answer to the starting point...

Can Prestidigitation flavor 1 lb of food (oatmeal?) to taste like something that the caster has never eaten (smelled, heard described, read a recipe for, etc.)?

I would say no, since the spell is one who's efects you direct. I am going with a vague notion that I will try to articulate: basically, magic 'knows' in the sense that it can perform funtions based on the universes inofrmation, but not know in the same way that a sentient being knows things. IE: the spell 'knows' whatever formuli are needed for it to work. It cannot, however, adapt and extrapolate things based on those formuli, it can only act on the ones it was programmed with.

So, in the case of prestidigitation, it was programmed with the formula to do various things, as you direct it. The same spell formulas allow you to perform all functions, so the spell is programmed to fgollow your will along any of the paths mentioned. A spell called "make something taste like elf flesh" would be programmed with the formuli to, well, do just taht, whether you know what elf flesh tastes like or not.

Wow, I can't beleive I just made an argument based on wizardy as math..I freaking hate that idea of Magic :smalleek:

[Shhalahr Windrider]

Can Prestidigitation flavor 1 lb of food (oatmeal?) to taste like something that the caster has never eaten (smelled, heard described, read a recipe for, etc.)?
Pretty much what Susano-wo said.

If prestidigitation had a was shown as having some divinatory properties, yeah, it could seek out the flavor. But it seems to be more like the much earlier illusion example—the spell does exactly what you tell it to, to the best of your personal description.

Now, if you had an additional spell that would allow you to learn what elf flesh tasted like, you could use it to get the information you need.

Honestly, though, it probably won’t have much long-term impact if you rule otherwise.

[lamrar]

Hi!

I've been following this discussion for a while, and I thought I would toss in my two cp.

The designers who wrote the spells obviously had not sat down and decided on uniform rules for how magic is supposed to work in relation to the physical world. Thus, different spells seems to be based on different theories.

However, most of the rules just describe the mechanical minimum for the spell, leaving the fluff to the dm. The beauty of this approach is that it lends itself to widely different magic systems.

For example, in the case of divinations, the dm can rule that the answers are provided by spirits, and spells are merely a way for the caster to find the relevant spirit and exhort (sp?) the information from it.

Or he could rule that reality itself is analogous to a giant self-indexing computer, either created/programmed by a god, or just randomly "pre-programmed," much like the laws of physics are in the real world. However, this last ruling works best with an Aristotelean ontology, namely that everything comes into being with certain objective "tags," and acquire more over time, and that this information is accessible from anywhere, given the right tools.


But basically, I think the metaphysical workings of magic fall into the realm of fluff, and is therefore up to the individual dm.

Edit: only the part about "tags" are based on Aristotelean ontology, the "accesible from anywhere" isn't.

[Ormur]

D&D makes more sense if the mundane workings of the universe are understood as roughly Aristotelian rather than following that bit about things working according to real world physics aside from magic.