Erfworld 152 - tBfGK - 139

[Midnight Roamer]

Ah, but the decision the Don made to send those warlords apparently preceded Caesar's decision to check out Faq.

Interesting note: Caesar refers to Vinny as 'Count' in panel 7. We have yet to hear Caesar be referred to as being nobility. I'm wondering if maybe he's not. We already know that nobility is not as important to Vinny as it is to Ansom, it may be that TV as a whole puts more import on effectiveness than on nobility.

Of course, maybe he's just using the title to remind Vinny who's in charge.

Either way, Caesar is definitely more powerful and in charge. I think he might be older too.

Well, nowadays Caesar is a name (heck, so is King), but the Romans and Ottoman Turks actually used it as a title. Heck, even the Russians used a modified version of Caesar (Czar) to refer to their rulers prior to the revolution. I'm not sure if that is the case here, but I'm not the only one to note the interesting blend of vampire and greaser-era Italian prominent in the TV's.

[BLANDCorporatio]

Way back when, there was a guy named Cesare Borgia. I might misspell the name, but the point is clear. Incidentally, he was the guy that Machiavelli based 'Il Principe' on.

[Lunaya]

If I knew how to quote multiple posts in one post, I wouldn't have done this

Exactly! I feel your pain, my friend.

As far as the Vinny debate goes, I'd say he reminds me more of Vinny Gambini than Vinny Delpino. Nothing gets by either one of them.

[fendrin]

Well, nowadays Caesar is a name (heck, so is King), but the Romans and Ottoman Turks actually used it as a title. Heck, even the Russians used a modified version of Caesar (Czar) to refer to their rulers prior to the revolution. I'm not sure if that is the case here, but I'm not the only one to note the interesting blend of vampire and greaser-era Italian prominent in the TV's.

Yes, I am familiar with Caesar/Kaiser/Czar as a title. It actually started as a name, though. Julius Caesar, though laying the groundwork of the roman empire was only a dictator, not an emperor.

No, Caesar is pretty clearly his name. Vinny does refer to him as 'Chief' (no doubt short for 'Chief warlord'), so that would seem to be his dominant title. That could imply that Caesar is not Don King's heir (as one would expect the dominant title then to be 'Prince').

[sabremeister]

I'm not sure what you're stating as 'incorrect' here. The above quotes were used as a counter to the argument that magic is supernatural. The quotes were featured as a statement that in some cases, technology and magic may be confused, and we certainly don't associate technology with the supernatural. I didn't read any statement anywhere that indicates anyone was trying to say magic and technology were the exact same thing.
The definitions that you posted with your reply prove that not all magic is defined in supernatural terms, so I'm wondering what you're really saying. Are you saying that magic is supernatural or not? If you're disagreeing with something else, perhaps that should preface your statements rather than simply opening with the word 'incorrect'.

I was replying to Jon Pander, when he responded to Kreistor's statement that "magic is inherently supernatural" with the word "untrue", then went on to quote a scientist/inventor/author, another author, and a webcomic artist.

All they say is that sometimes magic and technology can be confused, but Jon seemed to use them in a context that suggested that magic in our world is not always supernatural - which is incorrect. Magic, by its' definition, is in our world supernatural, whether it seems so or not.

Perhaps you should read things more carefully, and remember that the forums snip all but the most recent level of context when quoting.

No, Caesar is pretty clearly his name. Vinny does refer to him as 'Chief' (no doubt short for 'Chief warlord'), so that would seem to be his dominant title. That could imply that Caesar is not Don King's heir (as one would expect the dominant title then to be 'Prince').

Also, "Don" is roughly equivalent to "Duke". If the ruler of Transylvito is a Duke, then his heir would be a Count. It doesn't anywhere that a Chief Warlord has to be the heir, it just appears to be the most common situation.

[Midnight Roamer]

I was replying to Jon Pander, when he responded to Kreistor's statement that "magic is inherently supernatural" with the word "untrue", then went on to quote a scientist/inventor/author, another author, and a webcomic artist.

All they say is that sometimes magic and technology can be confused, but Jon seemed to use them in a context that suggested that magic in our world is not always supernatural - which is incorrect. Magic, by its' definition, is in our world supernatural, whether it seems so or not.

Perhaps you should read things more carefully, and remember that the forums snip all but the most recent level of context when quoting.

But your definitions of magic included stage magic, a decrypting machine, and magical beauty, which are not supernatural, thus your own source proves you wrong.
The nature of magic IS "perspective based" as you mention regarding a previous poster's quotes. You pretty much have to choose a definition of magic as "a supernatural way of ...blah blah" in order to state that magic is supernatural in nature. In reference to the earlier posts, vampires can be supernatural in comparison to other Erfworlders, if we define supernatural to mean "beyond the ordinary". They certainly do seem to be stronger than standard infantry, but we haven't seen much in the way of line troops from them either, unless the bats are it. To me, there is no "natural" in Erfworld, so it would be a poor point of comparison.

Edit: Reread the whole line of posts, trimmed the fat, etc.

[Gez]

Untrue.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." - Larry Niven.

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who do not understand it." - Mark Stanley

My favorite version is this one:
"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." -- Barry Gehm.

[Jon Pander]

You could just select someones post and paste it into your reply box, then wrap some quote tags around the thing, instead of, you know, spamming an entire bloody page.

1) I have no idea what you just said.
2) In erfworld forum, there is no bloody. Remember?

[fendrin]

Also, "Don" is roughly equivalent to "Duke". If the ruler of Transylvito is a Duke, then his heir would be a Count. It doesn't anywhere that a Chief Warlord has to be the heir, it just appears to be the most common situation.

Interesting... So maybe Vinny is the heir. On the other hand, Caesar refers to Don King as 'the King', so 'Don' again might be just a name...

I will dispute that the Chief Warlord being the heir is 'the most common' situation. That is the case for Jetstone, it was the case at Faq; it has not been the case in a while at GK (and even then Sizemore portrays Stanley's ascension to 'Heir' as unusual, but not his rise from Warlord to Chief Warlord), and we don't know whether or not it is the case with anyone else.

It seems just as likely to me that Ansom and Jillian, by the nature of their privileged status (e.g. Royalty), advanced more rapidly than the other warlords(Nobility, not Royalty) and thus became the best person for the job.

[Jon Pander]

That didn't really happen, it was the illusion created by the foolamancer.

Actually no, that part happened BEFORE the foolamancy occured. Look at the background - no 'large group of bats' in the background until later in the comic.

Plus seriously - Cesar did not get hit by an illusion. He got iht by something that was electrical. From what I've seen, dwagons do fire damage - only the hammer has been shown to do lightning. Even assuming that Cesar was attacking an illusion (which it seems clear was not the case at that point in the comic), the lightning was not an illusion and walloped him and ALL his bats at the same time

[Jon Pander]

No doubt Vinny has some pull and is a noble. But a lot of his "pull" is not rank though. It's good honest advice. He is trusted/respected by the Don (and was by Ansom as well). But that's not rank/authority. Ceaser is Vinny's boss and will make the final decision.

Cesar seems to be ranked high only because he's tough. Vinny seems to be the smart, strategic one. And in war, as we've seen with Parson, the smart one often wins.

Patton didn't win fights because he was an unstoppable killing machine- he won because his strategy was superior to his opponent's.

The Don seems like the type of person who respects brains over simply brawn, so I wouldn't be surprised if he'd back Vinny's opinion over Cesar's when it comes to strategic alliances.

[fendrin]

From what I've seen, dwagons do fire damage

Look closer, you will see that dwagons have a variety of breath weapons, similar to in D&D. Reds breath fire, pinks spit bubblegum, purple seems to have a sonic attack...

In D&D blue dragons breathe lightning. I'm not sure whether we have seen a blue dwagon's breath attack yet.

EDIT:

Cesar seems to be ranked high only because he's tough.

The Don seems like the type of person who respects brains over simply brawn...

These are both very large assumptions; we don't know nearly enough about Don King to understand his motivations for selecting a Chief Warlord or to predict his future actions.

[Jon Pander]

From a straight power point, he certainly cannot match Caesar.

Fortunately the Erfworld mechanics are more like Age of Empires and less like Pokemon Battle Royale

[Jon Pander]

Incorrect.

None of those quotes means that magic is technology. They are all perspective-based quotes.

Magic is technology.

There. Happy?

Reality is always a matter of perspective. When you know how a trick happens, it's no longer magic. When you don't know, it is magic.

Heck, watch Stargate SG-1. It's full of that form of thinking.
Watch Star Trek TNG. Picard has an entire speech about that with the proto-vulcans who think he's a god.
Play the game Mage the Ascension, where it's claimed that magic is a force of will over reality, and by making people believe a certain reality, you change reality. Mages just have a better understanding of how to do this than normal people, while Technology is repeatable magic which anyone can do because people EXPECT it to work.

I win.

#1 means that if, for example, someone invented a device that could literally create a live pigeon from nothing, it would appear to be magic (until the designs were published, anyway, at which point it would cease to appear to be magic).

It would still be magic. Just magic which anyone can do.

#2 explains how JK Rowling's wizards have things like radios and trains. The magic they use is highly advanced enough to appear to work exactly like technology non-wizards are familiar with.

Putting aside the fact that I hate Harry Potter, the wizards in those books are so stupid that they don't know how to use basic technology. To them, basic technology is as magical as their magic is to muggles. It's stated right in the series of books that you're referencing.

#3 is simply another way of explaining why the Aztecs treated the Conquistadors like gods - to them the Spaniards' flintlock muskets, horses, and steel breastplates would have seemed impossible, and the users of them must be powerful magicians. Just as Cortez would sink to his knees in fear and worship if a modern-day commando team appeared in their helicopter and kevlar armour and proceeded to machine-gun down all his men.

"For what is a god but someone who has a greater understanding of the universe and how it works?" - The Doci from Stargate SG-1, season 9.

The Conquisators might as well be considered gods to the Aztecs, and cannons are magic that the Conquistadors understand while the Aztecs did not.

And about Caesar's threat to drink Jillian's blood - maybe "drink blood" is the Transylvito warlord unit's Special Attack that drains HP.

Then he would have said 'I'll drain your HP' - it's not like other erfworlders have been loathe to use game terms in their world. 'Pop,' 'the twoll levelled,' 'units have no move,' etc.

Occam's razor dictates the most obvious answer is the correct one. He said blood. So erfworlders bleed. Cesar isn't using the word in some metaphorical sense. I doubt he knows what metaphorical means even.

[Jon Pander]

The above quotes were used as a counter to the argument that magic is supernatural.

Yep, exactly what I was saying. :) Magic is not necessarily supernatural. It's just something others don't understand yet, and I was just using those quotes to back up that frame of thinking.

The quotes were featured as a statement that in some cases, technology and magic may be confused, and we certainly don't associate technology with the supernatural.

Though to people without technology, it might seem to be because they don't know about it.

If you're disagreeing with something else, perhaps that should preface your statements rather than simply opening with the word 'incorrect'.

Correct!

[Jon Pander]

Exactly! I feel your pain, my friend.

As far as the Vinny debate goes, I'd say he reminds me more of Vinny Gambini than Vinny Delpino. Nothing gets by either one of them.

Maybe him and Ansom were cousins? :)

Vinny's too smart to be Delphino anyway. Vinny Delphino was an idiot in the show. At least Vinny Gambini had some actual smarts.

[Jon Pander]

Look closer, you will see that dwagons have a variety of breath weapons, similar to in D&D. Reds breath fire, pinks spit bubblegum, purple seems to have a sonic attack...

I probably wasn't paying attention, but when have pinks spit bubblegum and purples used sonic attacks?

In D&D blue dragons breathe lightning. I'm not sure whether we have seen a blue dwagon's breath attack yet.

You might be right - I don't play D&D - but until I see that blue dwagons can breathe multiple lighting strike breath, I'm assuming that it was done by Stanley, as per Occam's Razor.

we don't know nearly enough about Don King to understand his motivations for selecting a Chief Warlord or to predict his future actions.

We know that he's a simple man, and makes simple decisions.
Strongest fighter means best bonus, which (under normal circumstances) is the best thing for a chief warlord to have.
So it would make sense that you'd make your chief warlord your strongest fighter, not necessarily your smartest fighter.

But yeah, he -could- be any reason - this is just the most obvious one.

[fendrin]

Occam's razor dictates the most obvious answer is the correct one. He said blood. So erfworlders bleed. Cesar isn't using the word in some metaphorical sense. I doubt he knows what metaphorical means even.

Ockham's Razor dictates nothing. William must be turning in his grave over how many people misuse his thinking.

Ockham's Razor is a concept in metaphysics that essentially states that one should not postulate the existence of entities without sufficient reason for doing so.

For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture.

To learn more, check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on William of Ockham.

Even if we were to extend the principle outside the realm of metaphysics, it cannot be used to deny any option. It is at most a rule of thumb for the creation of ideas, not a tool for deciding between them.

EDIT:

when have pinks spit bubblegum and purples used sonic attacks?

You might be right - I don't play D&D - but until I see that blue dwagons can breathe multiple lighting strike breath, I'm assuming that it was done by Stanley, as per Occam's Razor.

Panel 7:
browns exhale a dark cloud
reds breathe fire
yellows drop turd bombs
pinks shoot bubblegum (seen in action here)
blues spit multiple lightning bolts
Purple's sonic attack (panel 8)

On the other hand I still think Stanley's attack was real.

We know that he's a simple man, and makes simple decisions.
Strongest fighter means best bonus, which (under normal circumstances) is the best thing for a chief warlord to have.
So it would make sense that you'd make your chief warlord your strongest fighter, not necessarily your smartest fighter.

But yeah, he -could- be any reason - this is just the most obvious one.

Don King says he is a simple man. That doesn't mean he is one. Also, you want a chief warlord with the highest possible leadership, not combat ability.

[Jon Pander]

Ockham's Razor dictates nothing. William must be turning in his grave over how many people misuse his thinking.

Ockham's Razor is a concept in metaphysics that essentially states that one should not postulate the existence of entities without sufficient reason for doing so.

Sort of like assuming that blue dwagons breathe lightning in an area effect when they have no reason to assume so? :)

You're misusing the term then telling others they are misusing the term.

To explain simply:
We've never seen dwagons use lightning bweath... I mean breath.

I therefore refuse to postulate the existence of an entity such as a lightning-breathing dwagon. Something you are arguing in favor of. There is no sufficient reason to do so, since there have been no examples of it shown in Erfworld as of yet.

There -has- been examples of the Arkenhammer causing lightning, however (multiple times in the comic, and references in the Cast Page. The picture does show the arkenhammer being used to attack Cesar with lightning (and all his bats, all around him, including behind him (and behind where a dwagon could breathe, uniless they fart lightning as well - another unwarranted assumption if you were to make it)

Therefore, since Ockham's Razor says to not postulate things which have not been proven to exist, we may only use things which HAVE been proven to exist.

Ergo, the hammer did it, as per the teachings of Ockham's Razor.

I win, just go with it. :)

[Jon Pander]

Ockham's Razor dictates nothing. William must be turning in his grave over how many people misuse his thinking.

Oh and on the topic of Cesar saying blood meaning that blood exists...

The only one who seems to have extra-erfly knowledge is Parson.

Which is more likely, that Cesar is making up a word which describes something which does not exist in Erfworld, or he's using a word which does describe something in Erfworld?

You said that "Ockham's Razor states one should not postulate the existence of entities without sufficient reason for doing so."

So is Cesar defying Ockham's razor? If blood does not exist in Erf, then he's postulating the existence of an entity (blood) without sufficient reasons for doing so.

Also, the inverse reasoning of Ockham's razor is that, if you should not postiulate the existence of an entity without sufficient reasons for doing so, then those entities which do exist become more likely than the reasons which do not exist.

Blood exists because Cesar has referenced it by saying the word 'blood'. He would not use the word if it was not a noun that refers to something. It's not even a stretch of the imagination to make that leap of logic. Plus Cesar seems to be the type of guy who says what he means. He's said what he means every other time we've seen him, and never used any sort of 'subtlety' in his language. Don't take my word for it - read any page which has him saying -anything- in it. He doesn't seem to ever say anything except what he's thinking, no matter how tactless.

You Chickie sack-of-bats, you!

[fendrin]

Sort of like assuming that blue dwagons breathe lightning in an area effect when they have no reason to assume so? :)

You're misusing the term then telling others they are misusing the term.

To explain simply:
We've never seen dwagons use lightning bweath... I mean breath.

I therefore refuse to postulate the existence of an entity such as a lightning-breathing dwagon. Something you are arguing in favor of. There is no sufficient reason to do so, since there have been no examples of it shown in Erfworld as of yet.

There -has- been examples of the Arkenhammer causing lightning, however (multiple times in the comic, and references in the Cast Page. The picture does show the arkenhammer being used to attack Cesar with lightning (and all his bats, all around him, including behind him (and behind where a dwagon could breathe, uniless they fart lightning as well - another unwarranted assumption if you were to make it)

Therefore, since Ockham's Razor says to not postulate things which have not been proven to exist, we may only use things which HAVE been proven to exist.

Ergo, the hammer did it, as per the teachings of Ockham's Razor.

I win, just go with it. :)

See my edit to my previous post(concurrent posting can be such a pain), and beware hubris. Your research inadequacies do not make you look smart.
Oh, and you still are using Ockham's razor incorrectly (I didn't use it at all, just defined it, thus I cannot have misused it). Ockham's Razor is actually very weak, one can postulate anything one has 'sufficient' reason for; 'sufficient' is not defined. Therefore any reason qualifies.

EDIT:

Oh and on the topic of Cesar saying blood meaning that blood exists...

The only one who seems to have extra-erfly knowledge is Parson.

Which is more likely, that Cesar is making up a word which describes something which does not exist in Erfworld, or he's using a word which does describe something in Erfworld?

The latter is more likely than the former, but the latter is no more likely than Caesar using a societally common metaphoric expression.

You said that "Ockham's Razor states one should not postulate the existence of entities without sufficient reason for doing so."

So is Cesar defying Ockham's razor? If blood does not exist in Erf, then he's postulating the existence of an entity (blood) without sufficient reasons for doing so.

Ockham's razor cannot be 'defied'. It can be ignored. It can be inapplicable. I seriously doubt Caesar is postulating anything, therefore it is completely inapplicable.

Also, the inverse reasoning of Ockham's razor is that, if you should not postiulate the existence of an entity without sufficient reasons for doing so, then those entities which do exist become more likely than the reasons which do not exist.

Eh, what? That is nonsensical. Something that does exist is (depending on your perspective) is either incapable of being compared on the basis of likelihood or infinitely more likely than something that may or may not exist. The existence of reasons has no direct relevance to the existence of the object which is the subject of the reasons... one cannot compare the two.

Blood exists because Cesar has referenced it by saying the word 'blood'. He would not use the word if it was not a noun that refers to something. It's not even a stretch of the imagination to make that leap of logic.

So if I say 'I saw a ghost' then ghosts exist?
How about this: does the statement 'Unicorns don't exist' make unicorns exist, therfore making itself self-contradictory? That leap of logic is like trying to leap the grand canyon; it's going nowhere but down.

Plus Cesar seems to be the type of guy who says what he means. He's said what he means every other time we've seen him, and never used any sort of 'subtlety' in his language. Don't take my word for it - read any page which has him saying -anything- in it. He doesn't seem to ever say anything except what he's thinking, no matter how tactless.

The use of common metaphors is not at all contradictory to being plain-spoken. If that is a common idiomatic threat in the culture of transylvito, Caesar could be using it without even considering that it might not make any sense literally. Compare it to someone saying someone is 'hot'. It is unlikely that the person being referred to deviates significantly from average human temperature, and thus the idiom has no literal truthfulness. Does that mean it is not used by unsubtle people?

You Chickie sack-of-bats, you!

Please do not be insulting. It is not appreciated, lowers other's opinions of you, and violates the forum rules.

[Kreistor]

Btw, gotta also correct you on something though it has no effect on the Erfworld storyline.

Magma under Yellowstone -is- creating pressure. The land has raised several feet over the last few years even from that pressure. Eventually it'll erupt like it has several times in the past

I beleive I referenced that movement, and even provided an image of the last 5 eruption positions.

That magma is creating pressure right now, but it hadn't for millenia. If the pressure created even a 1" per year rise, over 60000 years, that's 3000 ft of rise. Yellowstone isn't 3000 feet above surrounded territory. The pressure has increased recently, and we even had a close call a decade ago, but that's a recent change. For 10s of thousands of years, there was no pressure and no land rise.

Untrue.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology." - Larry Niven.

"Any technology, no matter how primitive, is magic to those who do not understand it." - Mark Stanley

What is "magic" in our world? There are two definitions. One is "anything someone does that I can't explain." that's not the magic I'm talking about. I'm talking about a power source that is non-scientific, and cannot be explained using the Laws developed by science. That is the definition of Supernatural.

From Dictionary.com "the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature." See the use of the word supernatural? Magic, the kind used in Erfworld, is inherently supernatural if used on Earth. It may not be considered supernatural by the peoples of Erfworld, wher emagic is a natural part of daily life, but here it is not. That's why here it is supernatural by definition.

Yes, someday someone could create a device that with a spoken word emits an energy beam, and it would look all the world like a magic spell. But the basis behind it would be the natural laws of this world.

By comparison, Parson's watch might be considered supernatural in Erfworld, if Parson tried to explain how it worked. In their world, quartz might not be able to produce a constant effect usable for timing the universe, for instance. That would make Science, our science, supernatural in Erfworld. What is supernatural, that is above what nature is capable of, is relative to the realities of the world that the events take place in.

[Jon Pander]

See my edit to my previous post(concurrent posting can be such a pain), and beware hubris. Your research inadequacies do not make you look smart.

You sack-of-bats, you!

Oh, and you still are using Ockham's razor incorrectly (I didn't use it at all, just defined it, thus I cannot have misused it).

You defined it, I used it according to the definition you gave, and you said I misused it. Therefore you don't seem to have an idea of what Ockham's razor is other than cutting and pasting from a site. You lack the ability to apply it.

Ockham's Razor is actually very weak, one can postulate anything one has 'sufficient' reason for; 'sufficient' is not defined. Therefore any reason qualifies.

Sufficient = qualified; enough to meet a need or purpose; adequate [Latin sufficiens]

It does not mean 'any' reason. It means a qualified reason which adequately meets the purpose based on a given set of pre-existing facts known.

But if you want to also tell me that the oxford dictionary is incorrect you can feel free. I'm sure you're smarter than it as well.

[QUOTE=fendrin;5964396]So if I say 'I saw a ghost' then ghosts exist?
Obviously a significant portion of people must think they do, that you can not dismiss them saying so by saying that their saying 'my house is haunted by a ghost' is an allegory for something else, rather than them meaning that THEIR HOUSE IS FREAKING HAUNTED BY A GHOST!

I admit that most of the time, ghost hauntings are actually caused by old man witherby though. Scooby Doo has taught me that much.

How about this: does the statement 'Unicorns don't exist' make unicorns exist, therfore making itself self-contradictory?

Oy .... dude, he said he was going to drain her blood. Do you feel that it's more likely that she has blood to be drained, or that he's talking about a mythical fairy tail thing called blood?

Cmon now, don't you get that the most obvious answer is usually the correct one?

No... no I don't think you do.

The use of common metaphors is not at all contradictory to being plain-spoken. If that is a common idiomatic threat in the culture of transylvito, Caesar could be using it without even considering that it might not make any sense literally. Compare it to someone saying someone is 'hot'. It is unlikely that the person being referred to deviates significantly from average human temperature, and thus the idiom has no literal truthfulness. Does that mean it is not used by unsubtle people?

Your use of big words has obviously won me over.

Oh wait, no it hasn't.

Cesar doesn't seem to issue threats or make statements that don't mean exactly what he's saying. I'm trying to figure out how you interpret a story based on past actions by ignoring all past actions taken.

Please do not be insulting. It is not appreciated, lowers other's opinions of you, and violates the forum rules.

Oh my god.... remind me to not make any jokes around you. Your sense of humor seems to be more dead than Ansom after Bogroll fell on him.

I'll explain the joke, since you didn't get it.

Chickie and 'sack of bats were the two slang terms which Cesar used to describe Jillian. He doesn't like her. Btw.... in reference to the rather dumb use of the word 'hot'... please realize that while Cesar does not seem to be use metaphors in his threats, he does use slang as a way of putting Jillan in her place.

Or maybe I was, by your logic, using them metaphorically. Because I've been soooo metaphoric in my past comments :)

You sack-of-bats.

[Jon Pander]

I beleive I referenced that movement, and even provided an image of the last 5 eruption positions.

Yeah I didn't read that post until after I posted mine. It was a cool epiisode.

Point I was making though is it's not really worth making a comparison in any case, since no one knows the physics in Erfworld that would explain stuff like flying carpets and dwagons, giant spiders (which would require an oxygen rich environment which hasn't been seen on earth since the Cretaceous period or so), and raising the dead.... to say nothing of plate tectonics.

So using anything abou yellowstone or any other sort of real life example of volcanos is going to fall short of explaining what happened, as all that is needed to explain it is:

A wizard did it. Which is according to the laws of nature in erf. Albeit a law of nature which was previously unheard of, due to Parson's extranatural thought process.

What is "magic" in our world? There are two definitions. One is "anything someone does that I can't explain." that's not the magic I'm talking about.

But it's still an accepted definition of magic. Both for 'stage' magic and real magic (whether it does or does not exist).
In any case, once you know how something works, does it make it no longer magic? Nah... it just makes you know how it works. To anyone else who doesn't know how it works, it's still magic (or might as well be).

I'm talking about a power source that is non-scientific, and cannot be explained using the Laws developed by science.

Assuming that there IS anything which can not be explained scientifically... eventually.

That is the definition of Supernatural.

But not necessarily the definition of magic.
Hence magic does not automatically mean 'supernatural.'

From Dictionary.com "the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature." See the use of the word supernatural?

See the use of the word 'presumably'?

Magic, the kind used in Erfworld, is inherently supernatural if used on Earth.

Just you wait until I learn how to bring the dead back to life a la Victor Von Frankenstein, and invent a nanobot in my bloodstream to convert dirt to automotous beings! It's just a different type of science that we don't understand. Or it might just be different beacuse of the fact that physics in Erf are wonky. Sure, in our universe, you can't create or destroy matter or energy, just change it - but in the Erfverse that might not be the case with physics. So conceivably a human from earth, if they are in Erf, could learn how to do these things - as long as they remain in Erf because physics won't kick their butt there for doing it.

It may not be considered supernatural by the peoples of Erfworld, wher emagic is a natural part of daily life, but here it is not.

It is magic. It's just not supernatural. It's 'extranatural' in that it complies with a nature other than the ones which govern our universe. Nothing supernatural about it though. If our universe had the same laws of physics as Erf has, you can bet I'd be raising your ancestors from the dead while flying on a dragon holding a squeaky toy which creates lightning and turns you into a walnut.

But the basis behind it would be the natural laws of this world.

And the basis for magic in Erf is the natural laws of that world. Hence it's not supernatural.

By comparison, Parson's watch might be considered supernatural in Erfworld, if Parson tried to explain how it worked. In their world, quartz might not be able to produce a constant effect usable for timing the universe, for instance.

Part of me wants to actually agree with you about Parson's watch as being the only thing in Erf which should be considered 'supernatural'.

Part of me wants to argue that Parson's watch is a rare example of a item which is natural in either Parson's universe or the Erfverse, albeit for different reasons.

That would make Science, our science, supernatural in Erfworld.

Again... supernatural is something which defies the laws of nature.

The laws of nature in question are going to be for the universe in which the nature and effect is occuring. So in Erfworld, nothing is supernatural. Magic is not supernatural

In this world, magic is not supernatural because it's a perception based effect. It can easily be argued that any magical effect is simply deception or trickery or technology which has not been discovered or explained properly.

But this is all a moot point- the point was that in Erf, magic is not supernatural. Vampires drinking blood in erf is not supernatural.
THinkamancy is not supernatural. Foolamancy is not supernatural. Archons are not supernatural. Giant sentient marshmellow peeps are not supernatural.
Because the laws of nature in erf support their existence. They are natural in that nature allows them to exist.

[Jon Pander]

Cool beans, how did I post to two people in one post??

[Jon Pander]

Btw, Fedrin, I used my own incredibly google and cut-and-paste skills to find this tidbit from someone who has probably done a lot more research about Ockham than either of us.

William Ockham (c. 1285–1349) is remembered as an influential nominalist but his popular fame as a great logician rests chiefly on the maxim attributed to him and known as Occam's razor: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation. No doubt this maxim represents correctly the general tendency of his philosophy, but it has not so far been found in any of his writings. His nearest pronouncement seems to be Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate [Plurality must never be posited without necessity], which occurs in his theological work on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi (ed. Lugd., 1495), i, dist. 27, qu. 2, K). In his Summa Totius Logicae, i. 12, Ockham cites the principle of economy, Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora [It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer]. —Thorburn, 1918, pp. 352-3; Kneale and Kneale, 1962, p. 243.[3]

I direct you to the second word of Ockham's razor - 'shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get at the simplest explanation.'

Please again tell me how I don't understand and I'm misusing Ockham's razor. Thorburn will be interested to know as well. I mean... he's dead but i'm sure he'll be interested.

I'm using the simplest assumption. You're using one which is rather convoluted. Simplest solution usually wins in a debate invoking the term 'Ockham's razor.'

My cut and paste kung fu is strong. Yours is weak.

[Midnight Roamer]

What is "magic" in our world? There are two definitions. One is "anything someone does that I can't explain." that's not the magic I'm talking about. I'm talking about a power source that is non-scientific, and cannot be explained using the Laws developed by science. That is the definition of Supernatural.

From Dictionary.com "the art of producing a desired effect or result through the use of incantation or various other techniques that presumably assure human control of supernatural agencies or the forces of nature." See the use of the word supernatural? Magic, the kind used in Erfworld, is inherently supernatural if used on Earth. It may not be considered supernatural by the peoples of Erfworld, wher emagic is a natural part of daily life, but here it is not. That's why here it is supernatural by definition.

What you had stated initially was NOT that if Erfworld magic were brought here, it would be considered supernatural, you had stated:

Because Supernatural comes from our world, where magic is inherently supernatural.

Two propositions are here:
Supernatural comes from our world--so you're saying that the idea of things being supernatural comes from our world and not from a world in which marshmallow peeps have a high flying movement score. Okay, I can accept that.

Magic is inherently supernatural (in our world)--this proposition depends upon context, especially cultural context, locale, language, and numerous other factors. The only way it can be true is to narrowly define what we mean by magic, which you haven't done til here:

I'm talking about a power source that is non-scientific, and cannot be explained using the Laws developed by science.

Unfortunately, it's like four pages later in the discussion and boils down to a statement that "supernatural magic is supernatural in nature". In addressing the vampire issue, the original issue, what is it that you are really saying?

[fractal]

Panel 7:
browns exhale a dark cloud
reds breathe fire
yellows drop turd bombs
pinks shoot bubblegum (seen in action here)
blues spit multiple lightning bolts
Purple's sonic attack (panel 8)

You forgot to mention that Greens breathe a blast of wind:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/erf0056.html

[chefsotero]

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem or "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." The term razor refers to the act of shaving away unnecessary assumptions to get to the simplest explanation. No doubt this maxim represents correctly the general tendency of his philosophy, but it has not so far been found in any of his writings. His nearest pronouncement seems to be Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate [Plurality must never be posited without necessity]

But Occhan's Razor is a rule of thumb. Pehapps the McDaddy of the Rules of thumb, but still

Given two models that describe the same effect we should pick the simpliest one. And hey that was a great thing in the Heliocentric x Ptolemaic models.

The problem is that it is no final proof. Einsten's cosmological constant looked like the simpliest model until Hubble came along.

So one can never use the razor proof of anything, just as likelyhood, everytime I use it I try (with or without success) to make it clear that with two unproven models I pick the simpliest one, and thats just because I like to do so and given that any theory we make here is based on an fiction that will be as consistent as the author can or want to make it, until he writes that something is someway anything is fair game. And even after that too (retcom is a word for a reason u know).

[Gez]

Cool beans, how did I post to two people in one post??

And why did you feel the need to offset this by making a post?

My cut and paste kung fu is strong.

Why don't we get to see it in action, then?