Random Worldbuilding Questions (Biology, Geography, Society, etc.)

[Cealocanth]

What are some examples where Physics dictates destiny?

To me, it would seem Physics dictates how things will happen in common scenarios. An interpretation could be, if you drop a ball from the top of a building, Physics dictates that the ball is "destined" to fall to the ground at a constant acceleration. Physics tells you that you are destined to find it harder to push a heavy object rather than a lighter object, etc.

[Jeff the Green]

To me, it would seem Physics dictates how things will happen in common scenarios. An interpretation could be, if you drop a ball from the top of a building, Physics dictates that the ball is "destined" to fall to the ground at a constant acceleration. Physics tells you that you are destined to find it harder to push a heavy object rather than a lighter object, etc.

Right. And you can go further than that: If human(oid)s are "just" complex chemical reactions, then depending on quantum indeterminacy everyone's actions would be predestined.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

Right. And you can go further than that: If human(oid)s are "just" complex chemical reactions, then depending on quantum indeterminacy everyone's actions would be predestined.

Ah, but falling balls don't get the choice of soup or salad. And often times we go against our natures. Gah. I brought this up here because it's been something I've been dabbling with for a week or two, and I can't get my head around the whole thing. I think I need to go through more examples from people or even personal opinions on the matter to see how I'd best see it, and then go from there.

In my setting, I know that the force of fate is the world itself. So physics would be a good place to start.

However, I'm torn on two ideas -
1. that fate isn't what will happen, but what must happen to keep the world from declining (ice ages, global warming, so on)

2. the whole events thing you mentioned that i played devils advocate on: events are predicted, without an outcome known.

Anyone have any thoughts?

[Admiral Squish]

My personal belief is that there's only one possible path for things to go down. As long as physics are in play, there's only one possible outcome for anything. What randomness we perceive is simply because we simply can't know all the factors. If you had a perfect understanding of how every individual atom interacted with every other atom, the single path of the universe would become clear. Sort of a giant, celestial clockwork.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

My personal belief is that there's only one possible path for things to go down. As long as physics are in play, there's only one possible outcome for anything. What randomness we perceive is simply because we simply can't know all the factors. If you had a perfect understanding of how every individual atom interacted with every other atom, the single path of the universe would become clear. Sort of a giant, celestial clockwork.

So for you, we are all pieces to play in some much larger thing beyond our understanding, and that free will is a fantasy implemented by us to make us feel more in control of out own lives?

Or is it larger, like we inevitably will do this, or this will eventually happen, what's in between is ineffectual.

[Spiryt]

So, pretty much good ol' Laplace Demon stuff?

[headwarpage]

Obviously, the question of free will vs. destiny hasn't been settled in the real world.

Which is actually kind of useful. In your world, you are god, and you can answer the free will vs. destiny question definitively and however you want. But the people in your world don't necessarily need to know how it's been answered. Even if everything is predetermined, they can believe in free will if you want them to.

In terms of how free will and destiny actually interact, my personal preference is what I'm going to call the "waypoint" model (essentially what Erfworld uses, if you read it). Fate decrees that certain things must happen, but people choose how they get there. If people try to avoid things that are destined to happen, Fate takes an increasingly heavy-handed approach to making sure they happen anyway. If people take the path of least resistance, or if they are unaware of their destiny, the things that have to happen will seem like natural outcomes that would happen anyway.

How much effort you need to put into answering this kind of depends on how much people in your world can know about destiny in advance. Only if there are detailed predictions that can be seen to come true do you need to devise a system that stands up to close scrutiny.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

Obviously, the question of free will vs. destiny hasn't been settled in the real world.

Which is actually kind of useful. In your world, you are god, and you can answer the free will vs. destiny question definitively and however you want. But the people in your world don't necessarily need to know how it's been answered. Even if everything is predetermined, they can believe in free will if you want them to.

In terms of how free will and destiny actually interact, my personal preference is what I'm going to call the "waypoint" model (essentially what Erfworld uses, if you read it). Fate decrees that certain things must happen, but people choose how they get there. If people try to avoid things that are destined to happen, Fate takes an increasingly heavy-handed approach to making sure they happen anyway. If people take the path of least resistance, or if they are unaware of their destiny, the things that have to happen will seem like natural outcomes that would happen anyway.

How much effort you need to put into answering this kind of depends on how much people in your world can know about destiny in advance. Only if there are detailed predictions that can be seen to come true do you need to devise a system that stands up to close scrutiny.

True, I'm the creator, and I guess Plot is Fate in any writing. However, what happens when the character can see ahead in the story? Sure it's nice for foreshadowing, but it doesn't balance well, and when a whole race can interact with fate, it gets a little wonky, hense why I've resorted to making a system around it. Plus it gives me a better idea on how that race interacts with the world, as well as in general.

I've been following Erfworld since it started, and have had some inspiration from the system. I find it interesting. I'm still befuddled on the interactions of luck and predictamancy... I just wish there was a straight up explination of the system, so I could glean more readibly. I do kind of like the idea, but I also am trying to figure out some aspects of it I don't like as much.

[Admiral Squish]

So for you, we are all pieces to play in some much larger thing beyond our understanding, and that free will is a fantasy implemented by us to make us feel more in control of out own lives?

Or is it larger, like we inevitably will do this, or this will eventually happen, what's in between is ineffectual.

I wouldn't say it's a fantasy. All of us perceive our actions as free will. And it's technically true, we are all acting how we chose. But the fact is, we are only capable of choosing one course of action. We DO have control over our own lives, because we make the decisions. But the decisions we make are the only ones possible due to the specific chemistry and physics at work in our brains.

[headwarpage]

True, I'm the creator, and I guess Plot is Fate in any writing. However, what happens when the character can see ahead in the story? Sure it's nice for foreshadowing, but it doesn't balance well, and when a whole race can interact with fate, it gets a little wonky, hense why I've resorted to making a system around it. Plus it gives me a better idea on how that race interacts with the world, as well as in general.

I've been following Erfworld since it started, and have had some inspiration from the system. I find it interesting. I'm still befuddled on the interactions of luck and predictamancy... I just wish there was a straight up explination of the system, so I could glean more readibly. I do kind of like the idea, but I also am trying to figure out some aspects of it I don't like as much.

Like most settings where Fate plays a major role, close scrutiny is troubling, and it's hard to resolve some issues without eliminating free will entirely.

Here's another idea: quantum fate. Which is to say, nothing is fated to occur until somebody predicts that it will occur. At which point, it is unavoidable, and free will will be circumscribed to whatever extent is necessary to make sure that whatever is known of the future comes to pass. Put another way, nothing is predetermined, but the future can be known with 100% accuracy, and knowing the future forces it to come to pass. But if nobody messes around with knowing the future, then everybody has real free will, not simply the appearance of free will.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

Like most settings where Fate plays a major role, close scrutiny is troubling, and it's hard to resolve some issues without eliminating free will entirely.

Here's another idea: quantum fate. Which is to say, nothing is fated to occur until somebody predicts that it will occur. At which point, it is unavoidable, and free will will be circumscribed to whatever extent is necessary to make sure that whatever is known of the future comes to pass. Put another way, nothing is predetermined, but the future can be known with 100% accuracy, and knowing the future forces it to come to pass. But if nobody messes around with knowing the future, then everybody has real free will, not simply the appearance of free will.

Ah self fulfilling prophesy. While an intriguing topic, I've entertained and discarded that idea since I have a whole race that can get visions. That'd be a lot of predetermination...

[Yora]

Questions:

1. How can one balance free will and destiny? As in how can both exist?

My personal, but completely unhelpful solution: Don't have destiny. Or Prophecies. They just don't work, especially in a game where the final outcome isn't determined yet.

One form of destiny that might work for an RPG could by Wyrd. It's an old northern European belief that assumes destiny is something like an extremely well informed prediction. An extrapolation based on what "fate" knows about the past that takes into account how the actors have reacted to events in the past, or their "nature".

You can change destiny, but it requires determination and great faith in yourself and the allies and powers assisting you. But in the end, your strand of fate is just a single strand in the weave that is made up of all people who ever existed, and the future course of your strand is limited by your past. There is only so much a single person can change in the complexity of the wyrd, but sometimes there are crucial crossroads points where a single strand of one persons fate can have a great impact on how the entire weave will turn out in the future.

You are assumed to have free will, but even a thousand years ago people saw that you are still a slave of your environment and your habits.

[Conundrum]

Hey guys! This thread is amazing. I have a couple of planetary questions... I don't think they're too complicated, but I need to check them for feasibility.

Basically, I want a world that would be uninhabitable, but only because of exceptionally harsh conditions - things the gods can fix. I'm thinking that it would be:

• Either too hot or too cold, except the gods change the size (and/or heat) of the sun;
• Too tectonic-ally unstable, but the gods hold it together (not sure what form this would take - volcanos, earthquakes? Or I just read about planets ripping themselves apart if the speed at the equator is higher than the escape velocity... so maybe that, and the gods hold it together or slow down the rotation.
• Too windy (I'm thinking Jupiter-level storms), but the gods keep that under control somehow
• and the water/oceans should be uninhabitable by default, but the gods fix it. Having the water be too acidic or basic is the only thing I can think of here, but maybe someone else has a better idea.

So what I need help with is constructing a solar system where that planet exists. I've done a bit of research and I'm thinking I'd want a K7-ish star, with the world situated too far out to be in the habitable zone. But that's about as far as I've been able to get. Does this sound feasible?

[Yora]

Temperature can be "easily" adjusted by concentrations of Carbondioxid in the atmosphere. Increase the level and a frozen planet might thaw, decrease it and hellish temperatures might fall to tollerable levels, if the distance to the star is correct. On a very cold planet, it shouldn't be a problem for gods to free Carbon in coal and oil underground and release it into the air, thus making the planet cozy warm.

Wind is also tied to the heat and cold distribution in the atmosphere. With more Carbon in the atmosphere, heat escapes into space slower, so temperarture changes should be more gradual and less severe, resulting in reduced winds.

Inhibiting tectonic activity is more complicated, but if you need an explaination, you could say that the gods are pushing back against the natural tectonic plate drift, thus slowing plate movement down to rates as we have them on earth.

[hamishspence]

Water vapour also helps (via vulcanism).

[Conundrum]

Temperature can be "easily" adjusted by concentrations of Carbondioxid in the atmosphere. Increase the level and a frozen planet might thaw, decrease it and hellish temperatures might fall to tollerable levels, if the distance to the star is correct. On a very cold planet, it shouldn't be a problem for gods to free Carbon in coal and oil underground and release it into the air, thus making the planet cozy warm.

Wind is also tied to the heat and cold distribution in the atmosphere. With more Carbon in the atmosphere, heat escapes into space slower, so temperarture changes should be more gradual and less severe, resulting in reduced winds.

Inhibiting tectonic activity is more complicated, but if you need an explaination, you could say that the gods are pushing back against the natural tectonic plate drift, thus slowing plate movement down to rates as we have them on earth.

Thanks for the answers! Although I'm less concerned with how the gods fix the problems, and more with setting up the world to *have* the problems in the first place, if that makes sense.

Also, to make things more complicated, I'd like to have four problems; one each for wind, water, fire and earth. Picky, I know, but I figured I'd start picky and see what can stick.

[Yora]

What makes sub-artic environments attractive for settlement? People have adapted very well to live in Siberia, Scandinavia, and Canada thousands of years ago, but what made people go there and not run away back south after the first winter was over?

[Synovia]

What makes sub-artic environments attractive for settlement? People have adapted very well to live in Siberia, Scandinavia, and Canada thousands of years ago, but what made people go there and not run away back south after the first winter was over?

The people to the south of them who'd kill them if they encroached on their hunting grounds?


To expand, people aren't very good about population control. Typically we find an area, and if we can survive, we reproduce until there's too many of us for the food source. Then we need to expand some more. People moved into those sub-arctic areas mostly because the areas south of that were already being used.

[Chilingsworth]

access to some specific resources? (Maybe their prey animals, maybe some sort of psychoactive lichen or other natural drugs.)

EDIT: I'm assuming you're asking about prehistoric societies.

[Yora]

The people to the south of them who'd kill them if they encroached on their hunting grounds?


To expand, people aren't very good about population control. Typically we find an area, and if we can survive, we reproduce until there's too many of us for the food source. Then we need to expand some more. People moved into those sub-arctic areas mostly because the areas south of that were already being used.

Unlikely. By the time the number of humans on the planet had grown to 1 million, we had already settled the whole world. Today Mongolia, one of the least densly populated places in the world with barely any natural resources, has far more than that. Conflict for specific places might have been common, but then you would just move 30 km away and never run into each other again. No need to travel 3,000 km into a frozen wasteland until you finally find a spot that is unoccupied.

[Synovia]

Unlikely. By the time the number of humans on the planet had grown to 1 million, we had already settled the whole world. Today Mongolia, one of the least densly populated places in the world with barely any natural resources, has far more than that. Conflict for specific places might have been common, but then you would just move 30 km away and never run into each other again. No need to travel 3,000 km into a frozen wasteland until you finally find a spot that is unoccupied.

Hunter gatherer societies need huge territories. 30km can be travelled IN A DAY, and is well within someone elses territory. Its basically in your backyard, and is going to heavily affect your hunting. You're making territory assumptions based on reality post-farming.

There are packs of wolves (which need much less protien than human beings, and have many less individuals than human tribes), that have territories in excess of 2000 Sq. Kilometers. There's a pack of wolves in Alaska that holds 6000sq.km of territory. And thats 10 animals.

[Ksheep]

People follow their food sources. If you look at hunter-gatherer and herding societies, they are oftentimes on the move, following the migration of their food source. The most well known example of this would be the Plains indians following the Buffalo, but a similar example would be the Sami people of Northern Scandinavia and Reindeer. These societies are built around their prey, and will follow their prey into inhospitable places to continue herding and hunting.

I should also note that not all Sami are reindeer herders. Another subset of them are fishers, and the northern waters are replete with fish and other marine animals. This also applies to most Inuit cultures, fishing, hunting seals and whales, and living off of the sea. Just because the land is barren and foreboding doesn't mean the surrounding seas aren't teaming with life, and in some cases it was easier to just continue living off the sea than it was to move south and start farming or hunt land-dwelling creatures.

[hymer]

Something that hasn't been mentioned specifically from my skimming: Displacement. As populations expand, people need to find land to live in, something that can sustain them in some fashion. Wars, migrations, feuds, oppression are all reasons people went somewhere else to live, because they had to get away from the people in the place they came from.

[Yora]

Vikings seem to have had a thing for snakes in their artwork and mythology. Are there even any snakes in Skandinavia, or was that more of a fascination with an exotic creature traders and raiders had seen in the most distant lands of their known world?

[Beleriphon]

Vikings seem to have had a thing for snakes in their artwork and mythology. Are there even any snakes in Skandinavia, or was that more of a fascination with an exotic creature traders and raiders had seen in the most distant lands of their known world?

Snakes occupy basically every part of the world that doesn't have permafrost (not quite but pretty close). They exists in southern Norway and Sweden and certainly exist in places like Denmark. I'm not sure what species are common in those areas, but one suggested origin of the word snake is the old Swedish word snok (meaning a specific type of grass snake).

Scandinavian peoples would have also been very familiar eels. Which are look like snakes in the water, although eels are of course a completely different type of animal.

[Yora]

I lived at the baltic coast of Germany almost all my life, which is just 100 km from Denmark and Sweden, and it always seemed as if snakes were nonexistant around there. Though they probably might be a lot harder to spot than deer, hawks, storks, kingfishers, seals, and porpoises, and don't even leave obvious traces like boars, which I have all seen in the wild personally and heard from other people as well plenty of times.
But then why did people encounter them more commonly a 1000 years ago? Was it because it was much more common then to watch the forest floor in front of your feet away from paths and areas without much undergrowth?

[hymer]

As has been suggested, don't get too hung up on snakes specifically. The words the Viking era Scandinavians used for this sort of concept was closer to 'worm' than 'snake' - as has been mentioned, snake was probably a specific kind of worm to them. Eels and actual snakes have been mentioned, but there's also the slow worms (which I think are called Blindschleiche in German? Anyway, I've seen plenty of those growing up in Denmark, and I've seen a grass snake, Ringelnatter and a common viper, Kreuzotter, both of which are endangered today, but were more plentiful then*), and of course your everyday earth worm which everyone would know and encounter regularly.
So worms/wyrms/snakes were everywhere, of different sizes, and some eels grow pretty big - well over 1 metre. So why not bigger still? Tales from far away and specualtion on what could be found in the wild, and old tales out of time before memory (the language is Indo-European, after all, and contans links to some pretty distant cultures) all would point to there being powerful worms, like Nidhug (Danish spelling), a dragon/worm of Norse mythology.

*I don't know this for sure, but fewer humans and a milder climate at the time is almost sure to mean they were far more common.

[Frozen_Feet]

In Finland, there's only two species of snakes, adder and beach snake, plus one snake-like lizard. These are commonly known and there were undoubtedly more of them in ye old times when there were less people to kill them with gusto.

Adders specifically feature in Scandinavic mythology. I'm fairly sure an adder was hung above Loki when he was bound.

[hamishspence]

I'm told that in Ireland there are no snake species at all- only slow-worms- with there being a legend that St Patrick drove them out of Ireland.

[hymer]

To clear up any translation issues, I've been referring to the vipera berus, natrix natrix, and anguis fragilis. And I have a hunch Frozen_Feet is too.