Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: wgemini on January 17, 2006, 07:27:13 am
-
The ending of FS2 bothers me ever since I finished it. It just doesn't make sense that the Shivans would abruptly terminate an on-going invasion and jump out. Destroying half of their fleet in the process. Could it be that the Shivans did not cause the supernova. Instead, the Juggernauts were simply resupplying around the sun in preparation for the final assaults. The SOC, weary about the impending doom, executed a covert operation that blew up the star. The command would never acknowledge it of course. Millions of people as well as score of battle ships were destroyed.
What do you think?
-
Unlikely. If GTVA knew that they can blow up the star they would pull out as many ships as tehy can. It makes no sense to sacrifice half the fleet if you don't have to. And to belive that the SOC has the power to blow up a star??? I personalyl beleve it to be too far stretched for ANY race in ANY Sci-fi.
On the other hand it might be possible that the shivans didn't intentionally blow up the star (failed experiment? miscalcualtion?), or that someone or something else is behind it.
-
No.
Why would SOC blow up the star, when the GTVA was about to seal off the system anyway? And what requires the juggernauts to do their "resupply" at the same time? They couldn't do it a couple at a time while others would be kicking GTVA butt, but had to gather together around the star?
Furthermore. Blowing up a star is no simple task. Might work in Star Trek, but I doubt that SOC had those kind of resources available. Should the tecnology be available, wich I also doubt.
This is what I think.
No.
The theory about Shivans making an error is worth considering however...
-
The FS2 ending cutscene seemed pretty conclusive to me, leaving little doubt that the Shivans did trigger the supernova. Plus, if the GTVA really had the means to blow up a star, I have a feeling that Into the Lions Den would have had quite a different objective than simply scouting ;)
What we can speculate on though, is why they did it, if it was even intentional... and whether the majority of their fleet was in fact destroyed. It's entirely possible that a lot of those which were not engaged in direct combat with GTVA vessels escaped.
-
Hey wgemini, welcome to HLP. Interesting theory, though not without its holes (as pointed out above). There are many suggestions in the FS2 ending cutscene that the Shivans intentionally detonated the star (e.g. Petrarch's philosophical reflections on what they might have been trying to do), but you never know; the SOC always pop up in places we don't expect. :)
:welcome:
-
I'm of the same opinion about SOC causing the nova, and by that I mean I don't think they did it.
For some reason I never really considered that the shivans didn't blow it up, or that they might have been trying to prevent it from exploding. Maybe that could have something to do with 'the greater problem' [:V:] (the :V: is a guess, what is it to get the icon on the new forums?) talked about.
But then that sounds quite a bit like how the mindgames team must've arrived at their plot.
-
It's possible that the shivans accidently triggered the supernova, as in whatever they were trying to do hasa % chance of failing and causing a supernova...
-
I find that equally unlikely, given the behavior of the Sathanas fleet right before the star blows. The way most of them jump out right before Capella goes up is a pretty clear indication that the shivans had been planning to get out of there in a hurry. More likely, they cared nothing about the fate of their lesser ships once the primary mission with Capella - whatever that was - was completed.
-
Directly, the Shivans.
Indirectly, it's all Alpha 1's fault for blowing up those freighters during "Their Finest Hour".
-
I find that equally unlikely, given the behavior of the Sathanas fleet right before the star blows. The way most of them jump out right before Capella goes up is a pretty clear indication that the shivans had been planning to get out of there in a hurry. More likely, they cared nothing about the fate of their lesser ships once the primary mission with Capella - whatever that was - was completed.
Not necessarily; you're assuming that if it did go wrong the Shivans wouldn't be able to tell until it's too late (for the Sathani, etc) to escape. I'd say intentional supernova is the most plausible (it would be a pretty odd cutscene to have otherwise), but I don't think the 'accident' theory is as unlikely as you suggest.
-
I'm of the same opinion about SOC causing the nova, and by that I mean I don't think they did it.
For some reason I never really considered that the shivans didn't blow it up, or that they might have been trying to prevent it from exploding. Maybe that could have something to do with 'the greater problem' [:V:] (the :V: is a guess, what is it to get the icon on the new forums?) talked about.
But then that sounds quite a bit like how the mindgames team must've arrived at their plot.
IIRC Mindgames says the Shivans blew up Capella in order to kill several Starborn that were hanging around it.
The code for the (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/Smileys/HLP/v.gif) Icon is :v:
-
Yep. Although the Shivans actually trying and failing to prevent something else blowing up Capella is another possibility I find interesting :)
-
Lets assume for a moment that Shivans were trying to prevent the supernova... Ok. Why would they do that? Why try to prevent it when they could have their juggernaut fleet in GD and blast everything that tries to come trought. And just let the hairless monkeys and their fis luvin' buddies fry in the bang. I see 3 possible reasons.
a) They want to personally blow Alpha 1 & co to pieces. And since we may speculate that the jump nodes would collapse in the event of the supernova, thus cutting the Shivans off from GTVA, they have a reason to save Capella.
b) They couldn't care less about the GTVA. But know that the explosion of Capella would have some other effect on a bigger scale. And want to prevent some entirely unknown force from blowing up the star.
c) They just don't want to see good star to go to waste. Perhaps they like the color, or it would harm subspace or sumthin'. But they want to save Capella for personal reasons.
Those are the best 3 reasons I could come up with that would warrant the shivers to save Capella. And as you can see, they ain't too good. So I belive Shivans either wanted to blow up the star. Or tried to something else, but screwed up...
What if the Shivans did some ultrafraggingimportant stuff at/to the star, that had some % chance to cause the supernova. Perhaps they deemed the possibility for it so small that they cambled on it (if the possibility for supernova had been 15-20%, and angry Terrans and Vasudans running around they might have just gone with the "to hell with it" attitude). Or then maybe the Shivans just didn't care if a supernova occurs. You know, **** happens and get on with it.
-
I doubt that the Shivans cared enough about the GTVA to save Capella for them but there are a bunch of other reasons that do fit.
1) If Capella is physically close to Shivan space the destruction of Capella could do severe damage to their systems.
2) The destruction of Capella could cause changes to the subspace network.
3) The destruction of Capella might have caused a black hole that was the entry point for something dangerous enough that the Shivans wouldn't want to give them the chance of getting into their galaxy.
-
There's a but. If Shivans didn't do it, who did? Not Terrans nor Vasudans. No locigal reason because of the jumpnode collapse plan. If the star would be that old, GTVA would know and command would have mentioned it (we know the approx. age of our sun today, and natural supernovas do not occur that fast). Ancients didn't do it, because offically they are dead.
And thought I admit that the theory sounds interesting, I seriously doubt it was someone *else*. I don't belive that :v: would bring another race in to the play.
The most obvious one to blame are the Shivans. They have the means (technology) and the will (they are pesky aliens!) to do it.
-
I doubt that the Shivans cared enough about the GTVA to save Capella for them but there are a bunch of other reasons that do fit.
Actually, since the Shivans were demonstrably not interested in the destruction of the GTVA, the "It's for your own good." concept has some weight.
-
The most obvious one to blame are the Shivans. They have the means (technology) and the will (they are pesky aliens!) to do it.
Doesn't mean that they are only possible ones just because they are the most obvious. One point that is worth never forgetting is that we have no idea what :v: were going to introduce in FS3 beyond very large ships and a bigger problem.
-
It doesn't mean that if Shivans are the most obvious it must have been someone else... :)
And yes you are right. We have no idea what :v: had in mind. Thus we must work what we have. There has been no indication of any third party influence in the Capella incident. Nor has there ever been any indication that there exists anything more powerful than Shivans. In this universe or in the next one from the right.
If we want to speculate what :v: *might* have done in FS3, then consider this. If they would have added another omnipotent race/force from this galaxy or some other galaxy, it would ruin the story. Everything thus far has been revolving around the Shivans, and they guard the doors to the answers. Adding something that the Shivans are afraid of would be like saying "Sorry guys, we ran out of ideas. But heres a galaxy killin' master race that we highjacked from the other scifi universe so that we might have another war." And I cant imagine :v: doing that.
The Shivans are the key here. Destruction of Capella was their main goal, or a side effect. Either way, they did it. I belive this simply because there is no indication whatsoever that it was some third party, or even the GTVA.
I bet the "bigger problem" in FS3 you refer to must have somethnig to do with Shivans and the subspace. :nod:
-
I don't think the jumpnode collapse plan proves anything. First of all, it may not work. Their efforts at Knossos subspace portal was a total failure. The baston was nearly destroyed before entering into the node as well. Even if it did work. the shivans are known to be able to open new nodes and/or use uncharted/unstable nodes. Thereofre, the plan is far from fool proof.
The problem with the obvious Shivan solution is that it goes against the theory of Shivans being the great destroyer and great preserve. The GTVA is trespassing in subspace, and thus poses a threat to all lifeforms. The shivans, being the immune system of the galaxy, are very interested in the destruction of the GTVA. FS1 showed the Shivans are very determined in destroying both the Terrans and the Vasudans. The destroying of the Capella Sun simply doesn't add up and is way too convenient for the GTVA.
-
There's a but. If Shivans didn't do it, who did? Not Terrans nor Vasudans. No locigal reason because of the jumpnode collapse plan. If the star would be that old, GTVA would know and command would have mentioned it (we know the approx. age of our sun today, and natural supernovas do not occur that fast). Ancients didn't do it, because offically they are dead.
And thought I admit that the theory sounds interesting, I seriously doubt it was someone *else*. I don't belive that :v: would bring another race in to the play.
The most obvious one to blame are the Shivans. They have the means (technology) and the will (they are pesky aliens!) to do it.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
-
It doesn't mean that if Shivans are the most obvious it must have been someone else... :)
I think you're arguing with me at cross purposes here. I'm not saying that I think another race is where :v: were going but there's no evidence against that so it's a perfectly plausible theory.
Same way that the Starborn in MG are plausible and yet I very much doubt that was what :v: were planning. :)
-
Well, someone in FS3 would have had ships 'large enough to have a gravity well'*.
*paraphrase
-
I don't think the jumpnode collapse plan proves anything. First of all, it may not work. Their efforts at Knossos subspace portal was a total failure. The baston was nearly destroyed before entering into the node as well.
They blew up the Knossos in Gamma Drac, not the portal. Big difference. The Bastion actually succeeded, and there's some indication in Petrarch's speech that the Nereid succeeded as well ("We sealed of Capella and our people are safe, maybe forever.") Also, Nereid came from Vega, not a Shivan infested system like Capella, and the Shivans never got beyond Capella.
Even if it did work. the shivans are known to be able to open new nodes and/or use uncharted/unstable nodes. Thereofre, the plan is far from fool proof.
All we know is that they used routes unknown to the GTA-PVN in FS1. Those were probably unstable jump nodes. However there's a difference in unstable jump node and destroyed jump node. Detroyed jump nodes can only be reactivated using a Knossos. Yes, the Shivans probably have that technology, so the plan is far from perfect. It is only good as a temporary solution. (and we need the Shivans coming back for another visit in FS3)
But now let's add a supernova to the equation:
a) the star is no more. It's gravity field is no more. You need a sun's gravity for a subspace node*. The shivans therefore did exactly what the GTVA was doing. They sealed off Capella.
b) the new nebula will be quite inhospitable even for Shivan ships for a few hundred or thousand or even more years. (altough :v: might conveniently forget this and allow ships in the nebula a few years later)
The Shivans actually made their job more difficult. They sealed off Capella for a long time (because of b)), while the GTVA would've sealed it of for a few decades. (until the shivans come and build a Knossos).
The destroying of the Capella Sun simply doesn't add up
I recently spoke to someone who finished FS2. His first question was 'Why did the Shivans blow up Capella?'. It does not add up, and this was :v:'s intention. They didn't want just another 'the Shivans come, they kick ass, we're almost dead, but then we discover a way to save our butts (sealing off Capella), and we survive' type story. They added a huge cliffhanger because they wanted players to ask exactly this question, and then buy FS3 just to get the answer. Even if they made the worst space sim and named it FS3, it would be bought by us, who played FS2.
*This is probably not canon, but the only nodes we know of are between two systems. It would also explain why there were Knossos portals in Gamma Drac, the Nebula and the binary system. No sun (& it's gravity field) in Nebula -> No connection to Gamma Drac and Binary system. Sun and black hole in Binary system messing with gravity field (unsure about this one) -> natural nodes can't form
Well, someone in FS3 would have had ships 'large enough to have a gravity well'*.
*paraphrase
Option 1: The GTVA builds a Death Star* and the Shivans, of course, have something bigger
Option 2: The shivans have a huge mothership (it would be like the Lucifer in FS1)
*Babylon 5 is 5 miles long, a bit longer than the Colossus (8+ km), and has a gravity well around it, enough to keep a human body from drifting away if dumped from an airlock ('And The Sky Full Of Stars' IIRC). <length of colossus> / <length of Orion> = 3. <length of Colossus> * 3 = 18 km.
-
IIRC Mindgames says the Shivans blew up Capella in order to kill several Starborn that were hanging around it.
MindGames is definitely in the "Shivans-screwed-up-at-Capella" camp. The Shivan Groupmind was trying to destroy the many Starborn on Capella's surface by using a weapon borrowed from the Ancient's arsenal. It expected to create a tsunami-like distrubance in Capella's outer layers but didn't understand the actual strength of the weapon. When it saw the nova starting, it got out what assets it could.
-
MindGames is definitely in the "Shivans-screwed-up-at-Capella" camp. The Shivan Groupmind was trying to destroy the many Starborn on Capella's surface by using a weapon borrowed from the Ancient's arsenal. It expected to create a tsunami-like distrubance in Capella's outer layers but didn't understand the actual strength of the weapon. When it saw the nova starting, it got out what assets it could.
With a fleet of 80 sath's you'd think they could do that easily without blowing the sun.
And an another interesting question - Capella was full of GTVA ship, even some science vessels monitoring the star - how come no one noticed the starborn?
-
Cause no one was actually looking IN Capella for them. :) They do look a lot like the star itself you know so you'd have a problem spotting them. Even if they did spot them it would probably be assumed that they were an effect caused by the Shivan manipulation of subspace.
-
MindGames is definitely in the "Shivans-screwed-up-at-Capella" camp. The Shivan Groupmind was trying to destroy the many Starborn on Capella's surface by using a weapon borrowed from the Ancient's arsenal. It expected to create a tsunami-like distrubance in Capella's outer layers but didn't understand the actual strength of the weapon. When it saw the nova starting, it got out what assets it could.
With a fleet of 80 sath's you'd think they could do that easily without blowing the sun.
And an another interesting question - Capella was full of GTVA ship, even some science vessels monitoring the star - how come no one noticed the starborn?
When you're talking about the Starborn, you're talking about beings that are close to gods; beyond human conception or understanding - of a level of existence that, to humans and vasudans, makes them seem as if part of the fabric of the universe. It's like, why don't we know if other life exists, even though we look out with Seti and soforth? Because the tools we have aren't able to see far enough. Same for the Starborn, except it's not distance but comprehension that is the barrier.
At least that's my memory of it.
NB: not worth assuming what is 'easy' in terms of the 80 Sathani; this is the realm of Mindgames canon, and if they couldn't achieve it with 80 Sathani, it's a hard and fast fact.
-
Well it's not like they noticed them before ;)
-
Well it's not like they noticed them before ;)
The GTVA couldn't find it's own arse with both hands tied behind its back, going by their managing to somehow miss a giant, several thousand year old subspace portal during a survey mission to an otherwise empty system.
-
Capella was full of GTVA ship, even some science vessels monitoring the star - how come no one noticed the starborn?
The GTVA was more concentrated on studying the abnormal readings being given off by the Sathanes subspace weapon. Plus, attempting to stop the greatest enemy ever known to humanity with an untested, high-risk plan was probably more on the minds of the GTVA than searching for a god-like race that no one had known existed.
-
It's a star. We don't see into them very well. The outer layers effectively block our ability to see the inner ones. We have theories that can produce workable rough computer models of what goes on inside, but we can't prove a thing, because we can't see that deep.
More to the point, simply recognizing the Starborn as a form of life requires a massive leap of faith; they bear no resemblence in any way, shape, or form to any other life the GTVA knows of. It's entirely possible the GTVA has seen the Starborne. They simply don't recognize them for what they are.
-
The GTVA couldn't find it's own arse with both hands tied behind its back, going by their managing to somehow miss a giant, several thousand year old subspace portal during a survey mission to an otherwise empty system.
To be fair, it wasn't activated then. It may have just shown up on scanners as a giant rock.
-
They blew up the Knossos in Gamma Drac, not the portal. Big difference. The Bastion actually succeeded, and there's some indication in Petrarch's speech that the Nereid succeeded as well ("We sealed of Capella and our people are safe, maybe forever.") Also, Nereid came from Vega, not a Shivan infested system like Capella, and the Shivans never got beyond Capella.
It's still highly risky. Remember Bastion barely made it (largely because of the almighty alpha 1) and it only happened a couple of hours before, the covert operation would have been underway already (which is unlikely to suceed anyway, so it's just a backup plan).
All we know is that they used routes unknown to the GTA-PVN in FS1. Those were probably unstable jump nodes. However there's a difference in unstable jump node and destroyed jump node. Detroyed jump nodes can only be reactivated using a Knossos. Yes, the Shivans probably have that technology, so the plan is far from perfect. It is only good as a temporary solution. (and we need the Shivans coming back for another visit in FS3)
But now let's add a supernova to the equation:
a) the star is no more. It's gravity field is no more. You need a sun's gravity for a subspace node*. The shivans therefore did exactly what the GTVA was doing. They sealed off Capella.
b) the new nebula will be quite inhospitable even for Shivan ships for a few hundred or thousand or even more years. (altough :v: might conveniently forget this and allow ships in the nebula a few years later)
The Shivans actually made their job more difficult. They sealed off Capella for a long time (because of b)), while the GTVA would've sealed it of for a few decades. (until the shivans come and build a Knossos).
At end of fs1, alpha 1 made clear that Shivans can repair the node to Sol. Plus, it's kind of my point, Shivans made life a lot harder for themselves by blowing up the Capella Sun.
I recently spoke to someone who finished FS2. His first question was 'Why did the Shivans blow up Capella?'. It does not add up, and this was :v:'s intention. They didn't want just another 'the Shivans come, they kick ass, we're almost dead, but then we discover a way to save our butts (sealing off Capella), and we survive' type story. They added a huge cliffhanger because they wanted players to ask exactly this question, and then buy FS3 just to get the answer. Even if they made the worst space sim and named it FS3, it would be bought by us, who played FS2.
*This is probably not canon, but the only nodes we know of are between two systems. It would also explain why there were Knossos portals in Gamma Drac, the Nebula and the binary system. No sun (& it's gravity field) in Nebula -> No connection to Gamma Drac and Binary system. Sun and black hole in Binary system messing with gravity field (unsure about this one) -> natural nodes can't form
Well, if it's simply a plot tool, then it's quite lame. It actually made things a lot harder for :v: as well since they would have to explain why the Shivans would even bother coming back. On the other hand, the SOC solution would be a lot more intriguing. Just think about it, human/Vasudan rights advocates found out about the truth. GTVA is thrown into turmoil....
-
Keep in mind that the Shivans are the *symptom* of a bigger problem.
What's the title of the series?
What is the title mean in the setting?
Why is subspace itself so important that the Shivans would attempt to destroy any race that utilizes it?
Was the Shivan clemency after the Great War, and the Battle of Capella just part of a larger scheme?
All FS games deal with sacrifice. The end of the series means the ultimate sacrifice, sacrifice of its namesake.
The question is how will humanity turn from being on the brink of finally destroying the Shivans to giving up the stars....
-
Giving up the stars? why? Terrans will never do it.
-
Well, if it's simply a plot tool, then it's quite lame. It actually made things a lot harder for :v: as well since they would have to explain why the Shivans would even bother coming back. On the other hand, the SOC solution would be a lot more intriguing. Just think about it, human/Vasudan rights advocates found out about the truth. GTVA is thrown into turmoil....
It's supposed to be hard to understand; that's the point of a plot twist, the only difference is that we haven't seen the aftermath. But Freespace has always about the Shivans agent provocateurs, and I can't see Volition just shuffling them into the corner, outsmarted and technologically outgunned by the GTVA. It's not as if command expected a nova in the last mission, after all; otherwise they'd surely have pulled out more combat ships to blockade Vega-Capella (and why would 80 Sathani gather round the node, transmitting that strange subspace pulse signal otherwise?).
Plus we know destroying the nodes - star or no star - wasn't a permanent barrier against the Shivans invading; Command admitted as much in the brief, noting the Shivans subspace abilities. Plus command stated the node destruction would have been total in the brief for the Bastion/Nereids' missions.
(I think it was called the Nereid on the Vega node, anyways).
-
Plus, it's kind of my point, Shivans made life a lot harder for themselves by blowing up the Capella Sun.
That relies on the assumption that the Shivans decieded to destroy Capella because of the GTVA.
Well, if it's simply a plot tool, then it's quite lame. It actually made things a lot harder for :v: as well since they would have to explain why the Shivans would even bother coming back. On the other hand, the SOC solution would be a lot more intriguing. Just think about it, human/Vasudan rights advocates found out about the truth. GTVA is thrown into turmoil....
I think the SOC having the technology to cause supernovae is more of a plot hole than mysterious Shivan motives.
-
When you're talking about the Starborn, you're talking about beings that are close to gods; beyond human conception or understanding - of a level of existence that, to humans and vasudans, makes them seem as if part of the fabric of the universe. It's like, why don't we know if other life exists, even though we look out with Seti and soforth? Because the tools we have aren't able to see far enough. Same for the Starborn, except it's not distance but comprehension that is the barrier.
If there's one thing I hate about Sci-Fi then it's beings like that. Everything in FS looks like hard-proven scientific fact compared to that. I like a healthy dose of realism, but to each his own I guess....
-
If there's one thing I hate about Sci-Fi then it's beings like that. Everything in FS looks like hard-proven scientific fact compared to that. I like a healthy dose of realism, but to each his own I guess....
you do? I'd never have guessed.
Anyways, it's not like there's anything inherently unrealistic about multi-dimensional beings; the odds are that any alien race we ever encounter will probably be near inconceivable to us because of evolutionary differences.
-
...the odds are that any alien race we ever encounter will probably be near inconceivable to us because of evolutionary differences.
No. It will be the average size of a human and have ripples on it's forhead and/or nose. And possibly a funny coloured skin. Plus english being the intergalactic standart laguage, every alien speaks it fluently... Shame on you aldo, you should know better. :p
The Starborn are a very interesting issue, but I agree that they don't really fit in with FS. Regardless, I would gladly play mindgames should I ever get my hands on it...
-
That relies on the assumption that the Shivans decieded to destroy Capella because of the GTVA.
Regardless their motives, they could have done it after destroying the GTVA. The only plausible explanation is that they changed their mind because of ETAK for some reason.
I think the SOC having the technology to cause supernovae is more of a plot hole than mysterious Shivan motives.
It's kind of a theme in FS world that GTVA can cook up any technologies in a very short amount of time. They just lack resources to mass produce them.
-
It's supposed to be hard to understand; that's the point of a plot twist, the only difference is that we haven't seen the aftermath. But Freespace has always about the Shivans agent provocateurs, and I can't see Volition just shuffling them into the corner, outsmarted and technologically outgunned by the GTVA. It's not as if command expected a nova in the last mission, after all; otherwise they'd surely have pulled out more combat ships to blockade Vega-Capella (and why would 80 Sathani gather round the node, transmitting that strange subspace pulse signal otherwise?).
Plus we know destroying the nodes - star or no star - wasn't a permanent barrier against the Shivans invading; Command admitted as much in the brief, noting the Shivans subspace abilities. Plus command stated the node destruction would have been total in the brief for the Bastion/Nereids' missions.
(I think it was called the Nereid on the Vega node, anyways).
Well, command doesn't exactly have a good record of telling the truth or care for their pilots. Both sides seem to be caught by surprise. Either it's an accident, or both fleets were kept in the dark.
A supernova presumably closed all nodes (including the one to GD), which makes it a lot harder to reopen them. Only some of the Juggernauts escaped. It will take them some time to rebuild their fleet. It's certainly not a good solution, but it seems to be the best for GTVA giving the circumstances, which is kind of SOC's job.
-
Regardless their motives, they could have done it after destroying the GTVA. The only plausible explanation is that they changed their mind because of ETAK for some reason.
On what basis are you claiming that your theory is the only plausible one? You have absolutely no evidence to back it up a statement like that. The Shivans in FS2 aren't necessarily the same sect as the ones from FS1. There could easily have been a change in their attitude to the GTVA after the destruction of the Lucifer. The Sathanas never tried to move beyond Capella and in fact was defeated somewhere other than the Epsilon Pegasi or Vega node which shows that there is no proof whatsoever that it intended to scout any further into GTVA space than Capella.
There is no reason to assume that the Shivans had any interest in destroying the GTVA in FS2 let alone stating that it is the only possible theory.
-
Karajorma is quite right. Remeber how they were so happy about the subspace portal, and how they broadcasted what it is, does and so on. Don't you think they would have done so if they'd found a way to destroy entire stars? That is quite a major discovery if you ask me...
-
Karajorma is quite right. Remeber how they were so happy about the subspace portal, and how they broadcasted what it is, does and so on. Don't you think they would have done so if they'd found a way to destroy entire stars? That is quite a major discovery if you ask me...
Actually, the GTVA was quite keen in not telling us things. Remember when we first saw the Erinyes? "The fighter they are flying is the Erinyes class. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, they don't even exist". (Or something like that). How about the Shivan communication node? "You can be sure that it will be above your level of clearance. They always are". (Or something like that. BTW, anybody knows where I can find a script for FS2?) We never knew about the Hecate or the Colossus until they were deployed. The main reason they bragged about the subspace portal was to justify the risk of keeping it online. Even then, it's highly classified (Level Phi or something). By destroying the Capella star, the SOC would be committing genocide. I am sure it will be classified above level Omega just for political reasons. Lack of trust is kind of typical for us Terrans.
-
On what basis are you claiming that your theory is the only plausible one? You have absolutely no evidence to back it up a statement like that. The Shivans in FS2 aren't necessarily the same sect as the ones from FS1. There could easily have been a change in their attitude to the GTVA after the destruction of the Lucifer. The Sathanas never tried to move beyond Capella and in fact was defeated somewhere other than the Epsilon Pegasi or Vega node which shows that there is no proof whatsoever that it intended to scout any further into GTVA space than Capella.
There is no reason to assume that the Shivans had any interest in destroying the GTVA in FS2 let alone stating that it is the only possible theory.
I guess I misspoke, my mistake. Everything is possible until :v: classifies. For all we know, the leader of the Shivans could be a Face Dancer sent by the Bene Tleilax. Or maybe the replicators invaded Shivan home world, thus they had to recall their fleet hastily. I am simply saying that the ending went against all the pretext :v: laid out for the Shivans, that they are the immune system of the galaxy, determined to punish those who have sinned. That's why I like FS1 better than FS2. It has a much more interesting back story and intriguing villains. Much like the Cylons in the new BSG series.
-
I prefer FS2 for exactly the same reasons. :p The FS1 Shivans are your average, everyday, bog-standard xenophobes. FS2 era Shivans are much more mysterious.
-
Anyways, it's not like there's anything inherently unrealistic about multi-dimensional beings; the odds are that any alien race we ever encounter will probably be near inconceivable to us because of evolutionary differences.
There isn't?
A being made of energy, living inside a star = impossible.
energy cannot be alive. energy cannot think, it cannot reproduce, it's not self-aware.
And other dimensions or realities..while in theory it might be possible, it stands on very shaky legs.
-
energy cannot be alive. energy cannot think, it cannot reproduce, it's not self-aware.
What are you then? Energy within an organic shell. If there is no energy in you, you're just a hunk of meat...
You do know what happens in your brain, how braincells function?
-
Though requires the biological, organic component. Electric impulses pass trought the nerve celsl and different areas of brain, resulting in tjousands of different bio-chemichal processes.
Pure EM waves are the side-product of the tought process.
Really, people..you've been watching too much Star Trek.
-
Not me, I hate Star Trek (the original series funny thought). And while I agree with you that anything living inside a star sounds pretty far fetched, you cant really know for sure that energy based beings are impossible.
While being a fact that we have not really seen any kind of space monsters before, they still are possible (in theory), and people may belive in them. As well as not belive in them.
But you stated your beliefs as a fact (at least it looked liked it). So I was just trying to correct you. :nod:
And while I don't really care that much about what you say about a living light bulb, I did react to you implying I might be a Star Trek fan :arrr:
-
Anyways, it's not like there's anything inherently unrealistic about multi-dimensional beings; the odds are that any alien race we ever encounter will probably be near inconceivable to us because of evolutionary differences.
There isn't?
A being made of energy, living inside a star = impossible.
energy cannot be alive. energy cannot think, it cannot reproduce, it's not self-aware.
And other dimensions or realities..while in theory it might be possible, it stands on very shaky legs.
why?
Your biological justification only stands ground within the realms of carbon based life; and carbon based life that evolved in earth, at that. The exact mechanics of thought only apply to human thought, really (we can't read the minds of other animals, after all), and what human brain action really boils down to is an action of input-process-response; memories are nothing more than particular reinforced neuron connection patterns; you're actually equating the action of thought as being caused by the physical mechanics, without considering if there can be a reproduction of those actions with difference physical mechanics. Hell, we can already mimic brain neuron activity mechanically, in software; the barriers to AI are more in the issue of conception & design (what is thought? How do we define it? How do we specify 'intelligence'?) than lacking the technology.
You've made a vast swathe of assumptions in areas you can't possibly make them for, and you've also kind of evidence exactly my point; the human mind can only imagine within the constraints of the world which it has evolved to live and operate within as the cumulation of billions of years history in that environment.
-
All you really need to 'think' (at least at a computer level) is an energy structure, ie, energy in a specific pattern rather than just free-floating energy. Whether or not you can be 'self-aware' at that point is debated, but you can have specific behavior on the level that the Shivans exhibit.
Granted that's extraordinarly unlikely to happen by pure chance, barring some kind of energy evolution, but you can always throw in extra races to fill that gap.
-
All you really need to 'think' (at least at a computer level) is an energy structure, ie, energy in a specific pattern rather than just free-floating energy. Whether or not you can be 'self-aware' at that point is debated, but you can have specific behavior on the level that the Shivans exhibit.
Granted that's extraordinarly unlikely to happen by pure chance, barring some kind of energy evolution, but you can always throw in extra races to fill that gap.
Do we actually know enough to say whether energy can evolve or not across a universal level? I mean, sci-fi can basically include anything unless it has been shown to be, specifically, impossible. Any unknowns can be safely and fairly assumed.
-
Only about 4% of the total mass in the universe (as inferred from gravitational effects) can be seen directly. About 23% is thought to be composed of dark matter. The remaining 73% is thought to consist of dark energy
So far we have only been able to observe the visible universe and very litle of it too, so we can't exactly say what is impossible and what is not. To say something is very unlikely considering our current knowledge is another thing all to gether.
-
What I see happening here is that a lot of people are viewing the future purely through a mindset based in the present, and that a lot of people are missing the concept of progressing human thought and knowledge.
Think about it. With the exceptions of navigation by the stars, astrology, and a few other areas, humans have been primarily concerned with Earth and life on this planet. We've studied the biology behind nearly all life on the planet, and we've come to a conclusion that all life on Earth must exist as a plant or an animal. What I see happening in this thread is that everyone seems to be judging the universe from a standpoint of how things happen here on Earth. As far as we know, there are no energy beings that exist on Earth; however, in another galaxy or solar system, there may be just such an occurence, where beings exist in a much different way than beings on Earth.
Energy beings could exist, just exist in a way that is unknown to humans. Look at humanity one thousand years ago. People lived under the impression that the Earth was flat and that Earth was the center of the solar system, and in a creation out of dust. Look where we are now: we now know that Earth is a round object circling a sun with eight other planets, all of it in a massive universe with billions of other stars similar to ours. We now have the theory that humans actually evolved, not simply created out of dust. IMHO, to claim or imagine that humanity has reached the edge of our understanding of anything is truly misguided: we are still working on cures for cancer, AIDS, and the common cold, not to mention the countless more advances to be made.
Perhaps in the same way that many have grown to accept evolution, humanity hundreds or thousands of years later may grown to accept a new form of life.
-
What I see happening here is that a lot of people are viewing the future purely through a mindset based in the present, and that a lot of people are missing the concept of progressing human thought and knowledge.
Think about it. With the exceptions of navigation by the stars, astrology, and a few other areas, humans have been primarily concerned with Earth and life on this planet. We've studied the biology behind nearly all life on the planet, and we've come to a conclusion that all life on Earth must exist as a plant or an animal. What I see happening in this thread is that everyone seems to be judging the universe from a standpoint of how things happen here on Earth. As far as we know, there are no energy beings that exist on Earth; however, in another galaxy or solar system, there may be just such an occurence, where beings exist in a much different way than beings on Earth.
Energy beings could exist, just exist in a way that is unknown to humans. Look at humanity one thousand years ago. People lived under the impression that the Earth was flat and that Earth was the center of the solar system, and in a creation out of dust. Look where we are now: we now know that Earth is a round object circling a sun with eight other planets, all of it in a massive universe with billions of other stars similar to ours. We now have the theory that humans actually evolved, not simply created out of dust. IMHO, to claim or imagine that humanity has reached the edge of our understanding of anything is truly misguided: we are still working on cures for cancer, AIDS, and the common cold, not to mention the countless more advances to be made.
Perhaps in the same way that many have grown to accept evolution, humanity hundreds or thousands of years later may grown to accept a new form of life.
The basic tenet of sci-fi is 'anything is possible', after all; what makes it such a fertile group for stories.
-
Point well-taken, which is also why I don't see a whole lot of point behind threads about, say, Vasudan anatomy or "what defines life in Freespace" simply because of the fact that "anything is possible", and what kind of "anything" really is in the hands of the creator.
Say I created a sci-fi universe. I could very well say that life could exist in the form of a gaseous bubble of acid, but the point is that I would have to back up why it is life. As long as the story and why things are they way they are are explained decently or believable, than it's much more enjoyable or comfortable. As far as I've read, Kara/Geezer have done an excellent job describing and explaining the Starborn, and, if this weren't only a game, I would believe that they would exist otherwise.
Did any of that make any sense to anyone else? I'm so doped up on DayQuil that everything I say makes sense to me. :nervous:
-
Point well-taken, which is also why I don't see a whole lot of point behind threads about, say, Vasudan anatomy or "what defines life in Freespace" simply because of the fact that "anything is possible", and what kind of "anything" really is in the hands of the creator.
I can see the use within the context that we're working (at least partly - depending on how much we want to) within a universe of someone elses creation and it can feel more authentic the more facts you have. But that thread on human-vasudan interbreeding was just odd.
-
The exact mechanics of thought only apply to human thought, really (we can't read the minds of other animals, after all), and what human brain action really boils down to is an action of input-process-response; memories are nothing more than particular reinforced neuron connection patterns; you're actually equating the action of thought as being caused by the physical mechanics, without considering if there can be a reproduction of those actions with difference physical mechanics. Hell, we can already mimic brain neuron activity mechanically, in software; the barriers to AI are more in the issue of conception & design (what is thought? How do we define it? How do we specify 'intelligence'?) than lacking the technology.
You've made a vast swathe of assumptions in areas you can't possibly make them for, and you've also kind of evidence exactly my point; the human mind can only imagine within the constraints of the world which it has evolved to live and operate within as the cumulation of billions of years history in that environment.
No actually, you're the one throwing assumptions around. If you claim energy can be alive, then maby you would like to explain how would that work?
Energy is a stream of electrons. How can it store information(memory)? How can it process it? How can it communicate?
While we may very poorly mimic neuron activity in software, the software by itself can't work without hardware.
Sci-F is a combination of science and fiction. Fictional stories and charachter in a scientific enviroment. Or at least uit was supopsed to.
I have given this matter a LOT of though...days....months..obviously far more then you.. My conclusions are simple - energy can't be alive.
Bah..as far as I'm concernd you can belive that Alpha Centauri is made of cheese. What the hell do I care.
-
The exact mechanics of thought only apply to human thought, really (we can't read the minds of other animals, after all), and what human brain action really boils down to is an action of input-process-response; memories are nothing more than particular reinforced neuron connection patterns; you're actually equating the action of thought as being caused by the physical mechanics, without considering if there can be a reproduction of those actions with difference physical mechanics. Hell, we can already mimic brain neuron activity mechanically, in software; the barriers to AI are more in the issue of conception & design (what is thought? How do we define it? How do we specify 'intelligence'?) than lacking the technology.
You've made a vast swathe of assumptions in areas you can't possibly make them for, and you've also kind of evidence exactly my point; the human mind can only imagine within the constraints of the world which it has evolved to live and operate within as the cumulation of billions of years history in that environment.
No actually, you're the one throwing assumptions around. If you claim energy can be alive, then maby you would like to explain how would that work?
Energy is a stream of electrons. How can it store information(memory)? How can it process it? How can it communicate?
While we may very poorly mimic neuron activity in software, the software by itself can't work without hardware.
Sci-F is a combination of science and fiction. Fictional stories and charachter in a scientific enviroment. Or at least uit was supopsed to.
I have given this matter a LOT of though...days....months..obviously far more then you.. My conclusions are simple - energy can't be alive.
Bah..as far as I'm concernd you can belive that Alpha Centauri is made of cheese. What the hell do I care.
Shame you're wrong then, isn't it. And for such obvious reasons that can be picked up with about 5 minutes of consideration.
Can you explain, state or prove what makes it categorically impossible across the known and unknown universe? No? Then it's perfectly fine for science fiction use. That's the main point; science fiction is not restricted by implausibility but only (and then only when it wishes to be) by impossibility.
Can you define 'life' in universal terms? I doubt it - no-one else has.
Can you define 'intelligence'? Nope (the definition of what 'is' intelligence is a long-standing and unresolved issue within AI work).
Can you explain, step-by-step, the actions and mechanics of every event leading to abiogenesis? No? Tut-tut.
Can you define every aspect of physics across the entire universe that would prevent what might be termed as 'exotic' life using non-chemical reactions or basis? Didn't think so.
But you're still happy to make sweeping generalisations about life - or more precisely, what form of life must be absent - across the entire universe?
If you want a method for energy to store information - how about different electron stream frequencies, vibration harmonics or states to contain valued information ala any data stream sent along a telephone or satellite line? Communication via transfer of said electrons, perhaps, or on an atomic state (perhaps using some form of atomic level transfer; I believe theres some bizarre properties orbiting electrons have that seem to allow instantaneous 'transmission' - aka quantum leaps). Of course, an energy based lifeform would be composed of interacting electrons, and I believe quantum (and below) physics isn't considered 'finalised', so I doubt you could make any sort of authoritative predictions upon it. In actuality, our life and intelligence is the result of a series of interactions (which I'd imagine are still to be fully understood) between various atoms, anyways, so all you'd need is some sort of analogue for that.
Not to mention that energy based life is often characterised as plasma-based life; and that is possible. Apparently, scientists have already created (in 2003) plasma 'cells' capable of communication, growth and even replication (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4174), and suggested that these could arise in a matter of microseconds. Plasma is, of course, a low intensity gas where the molecules therein are charged.
Of course, this is assuming we 'know' the entire universe. And the whole point is - we don't. No-one on this planet does. So I don't have to make any justification with modern science when the whole point is that science is grounded in human perception of the known universe and is still an ongoing investigative process.
Incidentally, we do have perfectly fine neural nets working across software. The issue has always been training them, because an NN is an inherently black-box and the derivations it makes from the training set can only be determined by use of a test set. A neuron is actually an incredibly simple proposition; it's purely a function that derives an output value from a number of input values; a neural network is setup by tuning the values used in that derivation (the threshold for activation) until the global output of the NN approximates the expected output for the same input set. Hence why it's black box. The hardware is rather simple; an input, an output, and a process for the function. I'm sure you've heard of a Von Neumann machine.
EDIT; of note; people have spent decades considering what is life, without ever getting an agreed and concrete definition.
-
I suggest that Trashman takes a look at some of the books on Xenoscience before ruling out the Starborn as a possibility.
People who spend their whole lives thinking about the possibility of alien life and are experts in the field believe that creatures entirely composed of plasma and magnetic fields are possible. I'd suggest What does a martian look like? by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart as a good starting point.
-
Aldo pretty much summed up everything I had posted, but a lot more eloquently.
-
Aldo pretty much summed up everything I had posted, but a lot more eloquently.
Of course he did, that's what he's here for. :nervous:
-
Can you explain, state or prove what makes it categorically impossible across the known and unknown universe? No? Then it's perfectly fine for science fiction use. That's the main point; science fiction is not restricted by implausibility but only (and then only when it wishes to be) by impossibility.
AS my statistics professor sez - if you get a chance of a event happening equaling 0, that doesn't mean it's impossible. It only means that the chances of it happening are 0.
Same thing applies here. if hte probability of such a thing happening is so abysmaly low that it makes more sense to belive Santa Claus really exists than that, then it might as well be impossible.
Can you define 'life' in universal terms? I doubt it - no-one else has.
There is only one definiton of life as made by humans. Earth is a big place, full of extreems and various forms of life, some who are incredibly alien in apperance or abilities - yet they all share some same, basic traits.
But as you say, that is OUR definition and therefore "incorrect". Well, what other definition is there? I would like to hear yours.
Beter yet, let me come up with one..and let's make it borad..so broad that even a rock or mustard falls under a category of living things.
Now prove to me rocks aren't alive.
Guess what? - by your own logic, you can't.
Can you define 'intelligence'? Nope (the definition of what 'is' intelligence is a long-standing and unresolved issue within AI work).
Inteligence is something that can be observed, but really defined or mesured? - I don't belive we can do that even by humans.
Once you spend a long enought time looking at something, you can generalyl tell if it's intelligent or not.
Can you explain, step-by-step, the actions and mechanics of every event leading to abiogenesis? No? Tut-tut.
nope, but I can explain the function of a human body and generally, the mind.
Can you define every aspect of physics across the entire universe that would prevent what might be termed as 'exotic' life using non-chemical reactions or basis? Didn't think so.
Nope, but I can tell you the basic traits or qualities of specific substances. Energy doesn't show ANY trait of a living being.
But you're still happy to make sweeping generalisations about life - or more precisely, what form of life must be absent - across the entire universe?
Not MUST, but 99.99999999999999999999999998999999999999% WON'T.
If you want a method for energy to store information - how about different electron stream frequencies, vibration harmonics or states to contain valued information ala any data stream sent along a telephone or satellite line? Communication via transfer of said electrons, perhaps, or on an atomic state (perhaps using some form of atomic level transfer; I believe theres some bizarre properties orbiting electrons have that seem to allow instantaneous 'transmission' - aka quantum leaps). Of course, an energy based lifeform would be composed of interacting electrons, and I believe quantum (and below) physics isn't considered 'finalised', so I doubt you could make any sort of authoritative predictions upon it.
You describe things that work on atoms, not electrons by themselves. And even those things are not accurately described.
Increased vibration or frequency results in a higer energy state in an atom, and that energy has to be released if it's not enough to cross into the next energetic state. In other words that information would pass liek a wave trough hte energy cloud without being stored, as there's no where to be stored. And therer's hte question if it could be stored, how to acess it later. Atoms don't jsut release electrons by whim.
In actuality, our life and intelligence is the result of a series of interactions (which I'd imagine are still to be fully understood) between various atoms, anyways, so all you'd need is some sort of analogue for that.
A broad, simplistic and innacurate generalisation.
DIFFERNT atoms, DIFFERENT molecules, DIFFERENT cells, DIFFERENT organs - all of that is needed for a simple creature like a chicken.
We are not made out of energy, as I recall, the Atom consists of far more than just electrons...
-
I note you've failed to give any sort of definitive answer here. How shocking; one would think I...expected it.
AS my statistics professor sez - if you get a chance of a event happening equaling 0, that doesn't mean it's impossible. It only means that the chances of it happening are 0.
Same thing applies here. if hte probability of such a thing happening is so abysmaly low that it makes more sense to belive Santa Claus really exists than that, then it might as well be impossible.
Your statistics professors should, I belive, also have taught you that you can't predict the outcome of a multi-variable event when you don't know the variables. Statistics is, of course, based on the analysis of the known data; the fundamental point here is that the overwhelming amount of data in the universe remains unknown.
There is only one definiton of life as made by humans. Earth is a big place, full of extreems and various forms of life, some who are incredibly alien in apperance or abilities - yet they all share some same, basic traits.
But as you say, that is OUR definition and therefore "incorrect". Well, what other definition is there? I would like to hear yours.
Beter yet, let me come up with one..and let's make it borad..so broad that even a rock or mustard falls under a category of living things.
Now prove to me rocks aren't alive.
Guess what? - by your own logic, you can't.
That's absolutely correct; it's impossible to prove or disprove a method of life without resulting to human defined terms formed within the context of our limited known environment, a single planet upon billions. It is quite possible that if we travel the galaxy in our species future, we will encounter many aliens that we define as unliving and who feel the same about us. But are the criteria you'd use to judge a rock as unalive behavioural or physical?
Again, you can't assume what is and what is not life based on such a tiny sample data.
The basic traits, as I said, are because of a common ancestor organism (and soforth), ranging from the very first living cells. The fundamental basis of 'very' alien life is that the defining event that led to these ancestor organisms is entirely different; you have 2 factors of evolution, which you've neglected here - one is that the environment plays a role in determining survival and fitness in natural selection (even the same mutations in an organism would see a different evolutionary outcome if the environment changes). The second is that the fundamental nature of evolution - life - is based upon a billion year chain of random events (not randomly selected events, of course, but nonetheless the types of mutation that occur to be selected are essentially random).
I would note you've not defined what the 'traits' of life are. So you've not been able to provide a definition for Earth life, let alone universal life. I would think it is pretty obvious that, as environment and evolutionary context change, it's inevitable the 'nature' of life would change.
Inteligence is something that can be observed, but really defined or mesured? - I don't belive we can do that even by humans.
Once you spend a long enought time looking at something, you can generalyl tell if it's intelligent or not.
So no, then, you can't define intelligence. Thus you can't identify the presence of it beyond vague and meaningless terms like 'I just know by looking at it'.
nope, but I can explain the function of a human body and generally, the mind.
That's all good and nice, except basing an arguement for possible forms of life on that would probably exclude the likes of, I dunno, plants or single celled organisms. Again, the anthrocentric fallacy.
Nope, but I can tell you the basic traits or qualities of specific substances. Energy doesn't show ANY trait of a living being.[/quite]
And energy as a constructor? Within an area, perhaps, of exotic physics like the cusp of a black hole? Or are you again talking in the terms of known earth life? What you've actually tried to do here, which is quite incorrect, is to try and address the possibility of an energy based lifeform, by analysing energy. That would be a bit like ascribing carbon based life to be impossible because carbon itself is inert.
Not MUST, but 99.99999999999999999999999998999999999999% WON'T.
Any basis for that big number? No? Well it's very meaningless then, isn't it. In any case, you are saying it's possible, and within an infinite universe, by your statistical value there, it thus must exist.
You describe things that work on atoms, not electrons by themselves. And even those things are not accurately described.
Increased vibration or frequency results in a higer energy state in an atom, and that energy has to be released if it's not enough to cross into the next energetic state. In other words that information would pass liek a wave trough hte energy cloud without being stored, as there's no where to be stored. And therer's hte question if it could be stored, how to acess it later. Atoms don't jsut release electrons by whim.
Unless the storage is within the waveform itself, of course. Like analogue signals.... bouncing back waveforms in a circuit between atoms, perhaps. Apparently it's possible to excite the electrons within an atom to multiple states, for use as data storage (purely theoretical at the moment of course) within a computer. I believe light has been used for this purpose in experiments.
Of course, such relativistic physics is really of no consequence because, as I said earlier, we don't know the entire realm of physics, particularly the lowest levels like string theory; the great thing is, I don't even need to know or care about the physics, because of this. All I need to know is that it's incomplete.
An energy based being doesn't require the absense of atoms anyways (that's why it says 'based' - did I not say that already?); this is largely why I mentioned the experimental concept plasma based life earlier (hey, you ignored that - why?)
In this context, we also have the setting of Freespace; namely that we have a known realm of non-relativistic physics which thus allows a ready made scope for more exotic interactions and possibilities.
A broad, simplistic and innacurate generalisation.
DIFFERNT atoms, DIFFERENT molecules, DIFFERENT cells, DIFFERENT organs - all of that is needed for a simple creature like a chicken.
We are not made out of energy, as I recall, the Atom consists of far more than just electrons...
So in other words, we evolved out of a set of interactions between discrete atoms (eventually forming molecules) which evolved through selection (i.e. forming a viable whole that was not destroyed) into more complex groups of more complex objects and interactions.
I think there's a term known as carboncentric bias (or similar); basically it means that people are unwilling to even consider the possibility of alterante compositions of life because all they know is their own. It's similar to the athromorphic bias that sees aliens designed in a way analogous to earth life; basic morphology, bipedal or resembling an animal (usually insectoid), having eyes and a mouth structure, etc. I think I can see it here; a sort of instant closure to any possibility that would be beyond current human understanding but not beyond the concept of an infinite universe of infinite possibilities.
-
So you admit it!
By your own logic, I can claim whatever I want and allways pull the "there's so much unknown in the univrse, so you might be wrong or there might be a dubios way it can work" "argument".
This is exactly why it's not an argument, becouse humans will never know everything and you can ALLWAYS pull it out. It's kinda like the why question:
God loves you.
Why?
Becouse you are his childern.
Why?
Becosue he created you.
Why?
Becoause he loves you.
Why?
..... continue ad infinitum....
-
So you admit it!
By your own logic, I can claim whatever I want and allways pull the "there's so much unknown in the univrse, so you might be wrong or there might be a dubios way it can work" "argument".
That's why it's not inherently unrealistic, because we have definition of what a realistic expectation is for the rest of the universe, nor anything approaching it. It's really a rather simple concept; we don't know everything in the universe, ergo we cannot make absolute judgements upon the universe. So within the realm of an infinite universe which is not fully understood, you can claim anything you want without it being disproveable.
Guess what? That was my point.
-
Bah,
(http://www.fattonys.com/images/Upload/Capel.jpg)
-
So you admit it!
By your own logic, I can claim whatever I want and allways pull the "there's so much unknown in the univrse, so you might be wrong or there might be a dubios way it can work" "argument".
This is exactly why it's not an argument, becouse humans will never know everything and you can ALLWAYS pull it out. It's kinda like the why question:
God loves you.
Why?
Becouse you are his childern.
Why?
Becosue he created you.
Why?
Becoause he loves you.
Why?
..... continue ad infinitum....
Except that this isn't about building a theory, or whatever... this is about a game's story, a fiction story, geez... :doubt:
-
So you admit it!
By your own logic, I can claim whatever I want and allways pull the "there's so much unknown in the univrse, so you might be wrong or there might be a dubios way it can work" "argument".
That's why it's not inherently unrealistic, because we have definition of what a realistic expectation is for the rest of the universe, nor anything approaching it. It's really a rather simple concept; we don't know everything in the universe, ergo we cannot make absolute judgements upon the universe. So within the realm of an infinite universe which is not fully understood, you can claim anything you want without it being disproveable.
Guess what? That was my point.
No offense, but this is exactly why I think you're whole "argument" is bull.
It's just a gimmic with which by finding a pseudo-logical "hole" can claim whatever you wish.
Defeinition of life..Well if the only way for you to prove energy is alive is to change the definition of life...two can play the game.
I'll change the definition of scientific method so that it will ALLWAYS counter whatever you say. ;)
We don't know everything. We never will. But we do know enough to make rather accurate assumptions. Untill those assumption are proven wrong, they are correct.
Strange this about definiton is - it is as it is. You don't like it - tough for you. There is a definition of life made by the human race as if something doesn't fall into that category then it doesn't.
-
No offense, but this is exactly why I think you're whole "argument" is bull.
It's just a gimmic with which by finding a pseudo-logical "hole" can claim whatever you wish.
Defeinition of life..Well if the only way for you to prove energy is alive is to change the definition of life...two can play the game.
I'll change the definition of scientific method so that it will ALLWAYS counter whatever you say. ;)
We don't know everything. We never will. But we do know enough to make rather accurate assumptions. Untill those assumption are proven wrong, they are correct.
Strange this about definiton is - it is as it is. You don't like it - tough for you. There is a definition of life made by the human race as if something doesn't fall into that category then it doesn't.
You don't even have a definition. That's the whole point. You keep on mentioning some vague allusion to 'you know what it is', 'you can tell by seeing it', but you've not even given a concrete definition of what is 'alive', or even what the basic tenets of life are, in order to rule out any form of non Earth-originated carbon based life. All you've done is go 'it's not energy', and say bugger all else. All you've been able to offer is a list of assumptions about how you are right - not why.
Justify why your assumptions are 'accurate' for an entire universe? Can you? And again you're missing the point; this is not about likely or unlikely, but possible or impossible. You say it's impossible, but can't give a reason that actually gives a specific reason that isn't earthcentric and based on hopelessly vague concepts of what is 'living' or 'intelligent' that you can't even define.
Define alive. Write it down. What makes something alive. Define it in a universal context, not just what makes something that evolved in an earth-like environment alive.
-
What came to my attention is this. Isnt it alittle odd that so many systems in Terran and (mostly) Vasudan space are inhabital. In reality very few are in habital, like Earth. All the other 8-9 planets in our system are uninhabital. All these inhabital systems in a area.. interesting. And for those that caught it, yea im unsure how many planets are in our solar system. Its been a long time ok! :D
-
I don't think there are that many habitable planets in FS universe. Habitable, as in Earth. Any planet can have a colony as long as you dumb a air tight dome in there and remember to bring water and food once in a while. But from FS2 I can remember only two planets capable of supporting life; Capella and Cygnys (sp?) prime... Those looked like nice planets, and briefings indicated that they were. I don't remember any other planet mentioned to be Earth like, and I certainly don't remember if there were any of them in the backgrounds.
Thought Vasuda prime could support life (before the Shivans came), you couldn't really put it in the same class as Earth. So go figure...
-
You don't even have a definition. That's the whole point. You keep on mentioning some vague allusion to 'you know what it is', 'you can tell by seeing it', but you've not even given a concrete definition of what is 'alive', or even what the basic tenets of life are, in order to rule out any form of non Earth-originated carbon based life. All you've done is go 'it's not energy', and say bugger all else. All you've been able to offer is a list of assumptions about how you are right - not why.
Justify why your assumptions are 'accurate' for an entire universe? Can you? And again you're missing the point; this is not about likely or unlikely, but possible or impossible. You say it's impossible, but can't give a reason that actually gives a specific reason that isn't earthcentric and based on hopelessly vague concepts of what is 'living' or 'intelligent' that you can't even define.
Define alive. Write it down. What makes something alive. Define it in a universal context, not just what makes something that evolved in an earth-like environment alive.
If we ignore the common traits displayed by all life forms we encountered - such as procreation, consumption, self-awareness ,etc... that still leaves one thing..one that is tied to very meaning of the world LIFE...and that is death..
All life ends with dearth.
Energy cannot die,,so unless you belive in immortal life-froms, energy can't be alive.
Oh..and if it is alive, then it's the most stupid life-form of all. I Havn't sen them complain for using them to power or usless gadgets...
b.t.w. - what IF there is no other life in the universe except on Earth? Is it possible? You must concede that it is.
In that case, all our "asumptions" about life are correct and universal.
So given that you don't know it isn't universal, how can you calim that I'm wrong? :LOL:
EDIT: I fear that byy the end of hte day this will tun out to be a thing of belief.
-
If we ignore the common traits displayed by all life forms we encountered - such as procreation, consumption, self-awareness ,etc... that still leaves one thing..one that is tied to very meaning of the world LIFE...and that is death..
All life ends with dearth.
Energy cannot die,,so unless you belive in immortal life-froms, energy can't be alive.
Oh..and if it is alive, then it's the most stupid life-form of all. I Havn't sen them complain for using them to power or usless gadgets...
b.t.w. - what IF there is no other life in the universe except on Earth? Is it possible? You must concede that it is.
In that case, all our "asumptions" about life are correct and universal.
So given that you don't know it isn't universal, how can you calim that I'm wrong? :LOL:
EDIT: I fear that byy the end of hte day this will tun out to be a thing of belief.
Better, but you're still missing a complete definition of life here (for example, the 'etc'). Firstly, you need it in order to define the converse state of death as well as that of 'unalive'. You'll note, though, that whilst the possibility remains Earth is the only source of life (although I remember Dawkins making a very strong arguement that is actually rather unlikely), it's not the only possibility. In actuality, it has no bearing unless it is proven to be, or proves something else to be, impossible; it's just an alternative.
Albeit, you're stretching the idea of an energy based lifeform to again make this strange connotation that automatically all energy is 'alive' as part of that idea. I presume to try and form a strawman (or maybe you misunderstood some of the analogies of current energy use in demonstrating principles applicable), because it's a rather bizarre notion. Although you are assuming that any energy based life would be affected by use as a power source, or even notice.
Now, you have some problems here IMO, because you're still not able to define life or it's tenets fully.
Firstly, self-awareness - how can we know an amoeba, or a snail, or a pigeon, etc is self-aware? Or even a higher mammal, for that matter. On the same subject, how can you define what makes someone self-aware, in a manner that restricts it to strict atomic reactions? (to consider non-chemical lifeforms, we need to do so; even if only to remove the atomic basis and restrict to chemical action).
Secondly, consumption. Again, that's something definable on the basis of the constituent organism; if we go into non-chemical life, we have to consider why that would be considered as impossible; it strikes me that it'd be rather more efficient in actuality, if an organism can absorb energy as a native part of itself. But again we have the issue of nutrition, which is again a concept developed for chemical/carbo organisms because that's what we study; for a non chemical organism, the issue of what you need to 'ingest' is entirely seperate. So what we really need here, is an ability to take in energy (in some form) and atoms (of nutritional objects not manufacturable in the body). But, is that actually necessary if an organism doesn't need it? Because the need to do so is a product of chemical life; it's a necessity to sustain it, not something which creates it (for a somewhat muddy term). So, are we alive because we eat, or do we eat because we need to in order to stay alive?
Also, procreation. Another thorny issue, because what exactly is procreation and what does it entail? The broadest definition, I guess, would be any form of creating a new organism (because we have non-sexual reporduction like cellular mitosis). I don't see how that could be considered impossible in an energy-based lifeform, specifically with reference to the plasma-based experiments I mentioned earlier that did exactly that.
You see, what you seem to miss is that I'm not saying there is energy-based life, or that it is possible, just that you can't casually dismiss the notion on the basis of our limited understanding of the universe (which is both incomplete and earth-centric). You're trying to argue for an absolute, and I'm arguing for a possibility. The latter is rather a more easy arguement within an infinite and unexplored universe.
It is actually an issue of philosphy, and has been for a very long time; we can define life in the context of our environment and perception, but whether that is the only form of life possible across an infinite universe is a very fluid and ultimately unanswerable; the real issue of whether other forms of life can exist can only be settled once we have either a) found it or b) explored the entire universe and not found it.
What came to my attention is this. Isnt it alittle odd that so many systems in Terran and (mostly) Vasudan space are inhabital. In reality very few are in habital, like Earth. All the other 8-9 planets in our system are uninhabital. All these inhabital systems in a area.. interesting. And for those that caught it, yea im unsure how many planets are in our solar system. Its been a long time ok! :D
Not really; as has been mentioned, it's possible to just bung down an atmosphere dome for a small colony, plus it's quite possible the more inhospitable planets are reserved for solely mining purposes. Or even, if the GTVA is environmentally conscious, to move the more toxic manufacturing and refining operations away from inhabited areas. Plus we don't know if the GTVA can terraform planets atall; I'd imagine there would be some knowledge in this area, both from the vasudans evolution in an inhospitable desert planet and corresponding need to expand outwards into space, and also from the long period (two, three hundred years?) when the gta/humans had space travel but only within the solar system.
Also, we don't really know how many refugees there were left over from the Great War, TV War and GTI rebellion that needed places to stay.... I guess it's possible that politics (especially from the breakup of the GTA, and also old T-V rivalries) and logistics (maybe not all civvie vessels have inter-system drives, given how expensive it is supposed to be) prevented refugees moving to resettle in the few earth-like planets available.