Asymmetrical Information

Shouldn't that be "all matches?"

Science is mechanistic. Magic typically is depicted as happening at the level of human thought or language.

As noted, The Incomplete Enchanter explicity says a person has been transported to a different universe (that of norse mythology.) So it's possible a different set of principles other than the normal laws of physics are in operation.

That post has a lot in common with the "Never watch a movie with an engineer" proverb.

Specifically, if a person find he must --

(a) disect match operation;

(b) present a brief history of oxidation chemistry from the 17th centuray to the present, and

(c) include a discussion on the role of phosphorous in cellular respiration

-- in order to clarify his dislike for a fictionlized world in which matches cannot strike fire, while mentioning only in passing that this same world contains magical powers, then he should exit the fiction section entirely and stop pestering those of us who enjoy the ocassional escapist fantasy.

As Ryan W. suggests, the difference between magic and engineering is that magic has a DWIM opcode (Do What I Mean). The whole attraction of magic is the avoidance of engineering.

Actually, matches will not strike in a
room that contains a small concentration
of the fire-fighting gas Halon, while you
and I can live perfectly fine there.

Bob Ayers

Check out the progression of the comment thread, where Yudkowski has had to explain that he doesn't care about what he was saying about fantasy, or fantasy worlds, at all; he just wanted to write about combustion. (My paraphrase.)

Good one Mr Ayers.

Which reminds me re magic vs engineering: magic doesn't have to be DWIM, it could just be very advanced engineering. Was that Arthur C. Clarke who said that sufficiently advanced engineering would be indistinguishable from magic?

For example, suppose one could engineer the selection of possible worlds at a very fine-grained level. Then, whenever anyone tried to use a match, it would "accidentally" fail to light (as long as there were a nonzero chance of it failing.)

Anyhow, that's all quibbling, and the point is that one can't find a set of natural laws such that phosphorous won't ignite in a normal atmosphere and yet our cells still function.

This brings up the point: How many facts about natural law are actually necessary to determine the natural laws of our universe?

How many different universal constants are there, for example?

So one might end up saying, "if constant foo were so-and-so, not only couldn't phosphorous light, but stars also could not form."

"one can't find a set of natural laws such that phosphorous won't ignite in a normal atmosphere and yet our cells still function."

Maybe one could find a set of natural laws in which our cells would function differently, but you can't change one part (the chemical properties of phosphorus) without changing everything.

"How many different universal constants are there, for example?"

The "New Standard Model" has 25 or 26 if you add one for gravitation.

None of this, however, addresses how to find the perfect match.

There've been many times when I had to go through multiple matches before finding one that would light. And yet I'm able to breathe and move and stay alive. Methinks Eliezer is using Ideal Matches -- go pester him, AJ.

Comments are Closed.