Erfworld 119, page 107

[raphfrk]

There are some interesting paradoxes about predictamancy. Let's say it's absolute, then it must include the reactions to itself (that is, calling for the veil, and what happens after the veil). Example:

1. Predictamancer predicts dwagons will cross the hex where Faq is and will attack and kill the ruler.
2. Banhammer knows they are doomed, the veil won't work for if it did (1) would not happen, that is the prediction would not see the dwagons attacking.

This doesn't seem right, for you can always behave in a way against what is shown in the prediction. Banhammer can decide to attack the dwagons before they reach the city and not die there, or he can ask another unit to kill him, or he can destroy the city so the dwagons get only ruins.

There is a concept in theory of time travel called the Novikov self-consistency principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novikov...ency_principle).

It basically means that you can't create a paradox by predicting the future.

If there are 100 possible predictions and 2 of them will lead to no paradox, then one of those 2 is selected.

1. Predictamancer predicts dwagons would reach Faq and destroy it were it not for the prediction
2. Banhammer orders the veil based on the prediction, and with that action changes the future and no further predictions can be made on this turn
3. Banhammer crosses his fingers.

That is, you are only allowed to change your future once per turn, not twice or more.

The predictamancer could say

1) "Dragons will capture city A this turn"
Banhammer orders it veiled, so it isn't captured

2) "You veil city A, so they capture Faq itself"
Banhammer orders the veil on Faq (or at least drops it on city A)

3) "It doesn't matter what you do, Faq will be captured within 3 turns"
This is true and doesn't cause a paradox.

This means that if those were the only 3 options, then the Predictamancer must say 3).

The principle says that there are so many possible things you can say, that there must be at least 1 that doesn't cause a paradox. In fact, it does it with a ball going back in time and colliding with itself, but it is the same concept