Forums of the Megaverse®

Nightmask wrote:You're confused on who's pushing a house rule there. The book does NOT say magic violates the law of conservation of matter and energy that is how you're house-ruling things because a few spells say they create something and you're spinning that as meaning they can actually produce matter and energy that never existed before which is not what the rules actually say. Same goes with your 'uh huh it so does!' fallacious statement that the books say magic does violate physics particularly the aforementioned law, the book does not state anything of the sort.

In any case that has nothing to do with the actual thread topic and is an irrelevant red herring, when the actual question is can one convert non-magical energies into magical energies and nothing in the books says it can't be done and to claim the books do say so is a demonstrably false claim. Lifeforms for example routinely convert the chemical energy released in processing food into PPE and a suitably researched device by an expert on magic and technology like a Techno-Wizard could certainly do the same thing: convert non-magical energy into magical energy.

I am not pushing anything.
You made the claim that we must follow the exact wording of the book, and only the wording of the book.
You then said that there was nothing in the book that supported the claim that magic breaks the rules of physics
I then point to he wording of the spell in the book is 'create' which does violate physics. And yes, it does say that it created the bread. The bread did not exist before or it would have been summoned. It could not have been made out of something else or it would be like the Create Water spell or the Create Wood spell, which describe the transformation process. This leaves .... creation. Any interpretation other than this, would require dismissing the canon words written, and substituting another word for it. That is the very definition of a house rule.

I am then told that it does not really apply? That a statement that something creates matter is not a violation of the Third Law of Thermodynamics? I would say that you don't get much more explicit than the combined statements that "magic is incomprehensible to science" and then, as an example of why....a spell that violates the Conservation of Energy. That's about as explicitly stated as "magic does not follow the rules of physics" as it gets!

And no I am sorry, its not a red herring. Part of the contention that a device can make PPE out of Electricity was that magic follows the same laws as physics and thus it was not just creating electricity but that it had to transform PPE into electricity. Remember? So yes, proof that magic does not follow the laws of physics, and that magic is indeed capable of (and does) create matter/energy is relevant since it throws out the premise that the electricity must be transformed and not created!

And then to top it off.....after all the complaints you have about how I am pushing non-book views (like what is printed) your counter argument is.... a house rule that has absolutely no book support at all about how PPE recovery works?

Nightmask wrote:

Prysus wrote:

Nightmask wrote:...when the actual question is can one convert non-magical energies into magical energies and nothing in the books says it can't be done and to claim the books do say so is a demonstrably false claim.

Greetings and Salutations. This is true. And the book doesn't say we can, so any claims it is allowed by the book are also false. At best, it's undefined and left to G.M. call/house rule.

You've got that on the wrong side there, the books don't say you can't so claims you can't are demonstrably false. Same with claims that magical energy somehow violates the laws of physics or that it's a special energy that non-magical energies can't be converted into.

Except of course where evidence is citied demonstrating that magic does violate the laws of physics. Then it becomes "the books claim that it does violate the laws of physics" and claims that it does not violate the laws of physics" require explicit proof of support.

Nightmask wrote:

Prysus wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Lifeforms for example routinely convert the chemical energy released in processing food into PPE

This is just untrue, except for in house rules. You can only naturally recover P.P.E. through "rest or sleep." You can be on a fast (not eating) and still recover P.P.E. if you're resting (by the book). Likewise, you can be on an eating binge, but if you refuse to rest for days you won't recover a single point of P.P.E. (by the book). So claiming processing food restores P.P.E. is provably false. By the book, it doesn't say the method of how rest restores P.P.E., and any claim of an exact method (unless you can back it up with a book quote) is a house rule.

Note: Meditation counts as rest/sleep. You can also steal/draw P.P.E. from other sources (such as people and ley lines), but that's not recovery (just replenishing).

I only commented on this one because within all the claims of the book not saying certain stuff, random claims are being attributed to the book and this particular contradiction was just too much for me. Farewell and safe journeys.

And what do you think resting lifeforms are doing but processing chemical energy from food into the energies required for its various functions including generating PPE?

This is still a house rule, since as Prysus demonstrated
Rest is involved, not food.
Lifeforms that are resting, but not converting get PPE
Lifeforms that are converting but not resting get PPE
Lifeforms that do not eat food get PPE
Ergo, the recovery of PPE is not connected to the processing of the chemical energy of food. Its an unrelated issue.
So, once again its a house rule. And house rules are not a good basis for supporting an argument on canon.

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:does not say conjures bread
does not say transforms x into bread
says creates bread.
sort of means that it just created matter.
The third law of thermodynamics says that matter can not be created

*snippety*
Create can be used in different contexts though.

Like for example in "Lesson Zero" when Twilight Sparkle says "we need to create a checklist" although she may have the unicorn magic to create matter, she's pretty much just telling spike to alter some existing paper by writing on it. So it may well be that when we create bread/milk that matter is being summoned from somewhere in the Megaverse and rearranged there. There may well be a dimension of dying calves bereft of mother's milk and fields of wheat suffering unexplained soil degradation.

Not exactly.....
There was no checklist, and after they were done, there was a checklist.
They created a checklist. They also wrote down the checklist presumably. But first they created it (brought into being something that did not exist before).
The problem with the idea of the spell being 'not a real creation spell' by summoning things....
Is that it does not say "summons X"
It also does not follow the format of Create Wood or Create Water and explain where its getting its material and the transformation process.
These spells though create a precedent that descriptions of the function of a spell will indeed describe what is going on. That we can rely on the book to tell us what a spell does.
Thus when the spell says "creates" something, out side of any other note or clarification the presumption is that the book is accurate, honest, and means what it says. Ergo that it does, indeed, create.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:You're confused on who's pushing a house rule there. The book does NOT say magic violates the law of conservation of matter and energy that is how you're house-ruling things because a few spells say they create something and you're spinning that as meaning they can actually produce matter and energy that never existed before which is not what the rules actually say. Same goes with your 'uh huh it so does!' fallacious statement that the books say magic does violate physics particularly the aforementioned law, the book does not state anything of the sort.

In any case that has nothing to do with the actual thread topic and is an irrelevant red herring, when the actual question is can one convert non-magical energies into magical energies and nothing in the books says it can't be done and to claim the books do say so is a demonstrably false claim. Lifeforms for example routinely convert the chemical energy released in processing food into PPE and a suitably researched device by an expert on magic and technology like a Techno-Wizard could certainly do the same thing: convert non-magical energy into magical energy.

I am not pushing anything.
You made the claim that we must follow the exact wording of the book, and only the wording of the book.
You then said that there was nothing in the book that supported the claim that magic breaks the rules of physics
I then point to he wording of the spell in the book is 'create' which does violate physics. And yes, it does say that it created the bread. The bread did not exist before or it would have been summoned. It could not have been made out of something else or it would be like the Create Water spell or the Create Wood spell, which describe the transformation process. This leaves .... creation. Any interpretation other than this, would require dismissing the canon words written, and substituting another word for it. That is the very definition of a house rule.

I am then told that it does not really apply? That a statement that something creates matter is not a violation of the Third Law of Thermodynamics? I would say that you don't get much more explicit than the combined statements that "magic is incomprehensible to science" and then, as an example of why....a spell that violates the Conservation of Energy. That's about as explicitly stated as "magic does not follow the rules of physics" as it gets!

And no I am sorry, its not a red herring. Part of the contention that a device can make PPE out of Electricity was that magic follows the same laws as physics and thus it was not just creating electricity but that it had to transform PPE into electricity. Remember? So yes, proof that magic does not follow the laws of physics, and that magic is indeed capable of (and does) create matter/energy is relevant since it throws out the premise that the electricity must be transformed and not created!

And then to top it off.....after all the complaints you have about how I am pushing non-book views (like what is printed) your counter argument is.... a house rule that has absolutely no book support at all about how PPE recovery works?

You say all that as if it means anything when it doesn't. The 'create' spells DON'T say that they violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy, YOU are saying that they do because the word 'create' is involved which simply does not have any validity to it. Just like you trying to insert your personal homebrew idea that magic energy is never used up and just kind of exists so anytime a spell is cast the magical energy brings into existence energy and matter that never existed before because you don't want magic energy behaving like every other energy and getting converted into non-magical energies. Sorry but no however much you try and insist on that making sense and actually being supported by the books it's just wrong. There is no way with any of what you've tossed out that you're going to make a successful argument that magical energy is so special it does work not only without being used up but even adds to the sum total of matter and energy in existence.

eliakon wrote:

Tor wrote:

eliakon wrote:does not say conjures bread
does not say transforms x into bread
says creates bread.
sort of means that it just created matter.
The third law of thermodynamics says that matter can not be created

*snippety*
Create can be used in different contexts though.

Like for example in "Lesson Zero" when Twilight Sparkle says "we need to create a checklist" although she may have the unicorn magic to create matter, she's pretty much just telling spike to alter some existing paper by writing on it. So it may well be that when we create bread/milk that matter is being summoned from somewhere in the Megaverse and rearranged there. There may well be a dimension of dying calves bereft of mother's milk and fields of wheat suffering unexplained soil degradation.

Not exactly.....
There was no checklist, and after they were done, there was a checklist.
They created a checklist. They also wrote down the checklist presumably. But first they created it (brought into being something that did not exist before).
The problem with the idea of the spell being 'not a real creation spell' by summoning things....
Is that it does not say "summons X"
It also does not follow the format of Create Wood or Create Water and explain where its getting its material and the transformation process.
These spells though create a precedent that descriptions of the function of a spell will indeed describe what is going on. That we can rely on the book to tell us what a spell does.
Thus when the spell says "creates" something, out side of any other note or clarification the presumption is that the book is accurate, honest, and means what it says. Ergo that it does, indeed, create.

None of which one can use to successfully argue that the laws of conversation of matter and energy are being violated in creating those things, particularly with trying to argue that the magical energy doesn't get used up in spite of actually being used to do something and somehow adds to the sum total of matter and energy in existence. Every creation spell doesn't need a disclaimer that it's creating by drawing together existing matter to create a particular object for one to reasonably think it so, instead of going for an unrealistic interpretation that magic is literally creating new matter that never existed before and is doing so without being consumed itself.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Prysus wrote:

Nightmask wrote:...when the actual question is can one convert non-magical energies into magical energies and nothing in the books says it can't be done and to claim the books do say so is a demonstrably false claim.

Greetings and Salutations. This is true. And the book doesn't say we can, so any claims it is allowed by the book are also false. At best, it's undefined and left to G.M. call/house rule.

You've got that on the wrong side there, the books don't say you can't so claims you can't are demonstrably false. Same with claims that magical energy somehow violates the laws of physics or that it's a special energy that non-magical energies can't be converted into.

Except of course where evidence is citied demonstrating that magic does violate the laws of physics. Then it becomes "the books claim that it does violate the laws of physics" and claims that it does not violate the laws of physics" require explicit proof of support.

Nowhere has a citation been made of magic explicitly violating the laws of physics, particularly in regards to the laws of conservation of matter and energy. 'I think those spells are violating it' doesn't qualify as proof of anything but that one's personal belief is that they do not that the books say that they are. You require an explicit statement to that effect not 'I believe that that's what those spells are doing'.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Prysus wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Lifeforms for example routinely convert the chemical energy released in processing food into PPE

This is just untrue, except for in house rules. You can only naturally recover P.P.E. through "rest or sleep." You can be on a fast (not eating) and still recover P.P.E. if you're resting (by the book). Likewise, you can be on an eating binge, but if you refuse to rest for days you won't recover a single point of P.P.E. (by the book). So claiming processing food restores P.P.E. is provably false. By the book, it doesn't say the method of how rest restores P.P.E., and any claim of an exact method (unless you can back it up with a book quote) is a house rule.

Note: Meditation counts as rest/sleep. You can also steal/draw P.P.E. from other sources (such as people and ley lines), but that's not recovery (just replenishing).

I only commented on this one because within all the claims of the book not saying certain stuff, random claims are being attributed to the book and this particular contradiction was just too much for me. Farewell and safe journeys.

And what do you think resting lifeforms are doing but processing chemical energy from food into the energies required for its various functions including generating PPE?

This is still a house rule, since as Prysus demonstrated
Rest is involved, not food.
Lifeforms that are resting, but not converting get PPE
Lifeforms that are converting but not resting get PPE
Lifeforms that do not eat food get PPE
Ergo, the recovery of PPE is not connected to the processing of the chemical energy of food. Its an unrelated issue.
So, once again its a house rule. And house rules are not a good basis for supporting an argument on canon.

Good thing I'm not stating house rules then.
Lifeforms rest to do things like heal, which they get their energy from FOOD, they clearly couldn't produce PPE if they were starved to death because their cells would die so they have to have something to run on and produce that PPE while resting. I also didn't say that the only way they recover/generate PPE is from eating and resting, I did mention that some like mages can draw in more PPE from outside themselves. PPE generation and recovery can't be fitted to anything exactly so of course comparison examples can't perfectly cover issues regarding it.

Of which again all of this has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic but a distraction to bury it under walls of text that don't really have any bearing on it, which is whether you can convert non-magical energies into magical energies and of which my main points totally unacknowledged to create the walls of text to bury it instead.

The books DON'T say magic violates the laws of physics, particularly the law of conservation of matter and energy. Claims saying the books have all been 'well I think these spells violate those laws so that must mean the books say magic violates those laws', something clearly not canon but a house rule.

The books DON'T say you can't convert non-magical energy into magical energy, so attempts to claim that the books do are false. If a GM wishes to rule that it can't be done that's a house rule not a canon rule. If one feels they require it to be canon to the books they're out of luck because it's not. Whether or not magic actually does violate the laws of physics (which again the books by canon DON'T say that) is also irrelevant because that has no bearing on whether or not non-magical energies can be converted into magical energies so one can't use that as an argument that by canon you can't do it because if anything if magic does actually violate physical laws then you should be able to do MORE than what's possible with non-magic not LESS. It's certainly quite contrary to claim magic breaks the rules only to insist that it does LESS than what's possible with the rules not more which is kind of the point of things that break rules.

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:You're confused on who's pushing a house rule there. The book does NOT say magic violates the law of conservation of matter and energy that is how you're house-ruling things because a few spells say they create something and you're spinning that as meaning they can actually produce matter and energy that never existed before which is not what the rules actually say. Same goes with your 'uh huh it so does!' fallacious statement that the books say magic does violate physics particularly the aforementioned law, the book does not state anything of the sort.

In any case that has nothing to do with the actual thread topic and is an irrelevant red herring, when the actual question is can one convert non-magical energies into magical energies and nothing in the books says it can't be done and to claim the books do say so is a demonstrably false claim. Lifeforms for example routinely convert the chemical energy released in processing food into PPE and a suitably researched device by an expert on magic and technology like a Techno-Wizard could certainly do the same thing: convert non-magical energy into magical energy.

I am not pushing anything.
You made the claim that we must follow the exact wording of the book, and only the wording of the book.
You then said that there was nothing in the book that supported the claim that magic breaks the rules of physics
I then point to he wording of the spell in the book is 'create' which does violate physics. And yes, it does say that it created the bread. The bread did not exist before or it would have been summoned. It could not have been made out of something else or it would be like the Create Water spell or the Create Wood spell, which describe the transformation process. This leaves .... creation. Any interpretation other than this, would require dismissing the canon words written, and substituting another word for it. That is the very definition of a house rule.

I am then told that it does not really apply? That a statement that something creates matter is not a violation of the Third Law of Thermodynamics? I would say that you don't get much more explicit than the combined statements that "magic is incomprehensible to science" and then, as an example of why....a spell that violates the Conservation of Energy. That's about as explicitly stated as "magic does not follow the rules of physics" as it gets!

And no I am sorry, its not a red herring. Part of the contention that a device can make PPE out of Electricity was that magic follows the same laws as physics and thus it was not just creating electricity but that it had to transform PPE into electricity. Remember? So yes, proof that magic does not follow the laws of physics, and that magic is indeed capable of (and does) create matter/energy is relevant since it throws out the premise that the electricity must be transformed and not created!

And then to top it off.....after all the complaints you have about how I am pushing non-book views (like what is printed) your counter argument is.... a house rule that has absolutely no book support at all about how PPE recovery works?

You say all that as if it means anything when it doesn't. The 'create' spells DON'T say that they violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy, YOU are saying that they do because the word 'create' is involved which simply does not have any validity to it. Just like you trying to insert your personal homebrew idea that magic energy is never used up and just kind of exists so anytime a spell is cast the magical energy brings into existence energy and matter that never existed before because you don't want magic energy behaving like every other energy and getting converted into non-magical energies. Sorry but no however much you try and insist on that making sense and actually being supported by the books it's just wrong. There is no way with any of what you've tossed out that you're going to make a successful argument that magical energy is so special it does work not only without being used up but even adds to the sum total of matter and energy in existence.

So what part then of the word "create" does not mean create? And what does it mean then?
I am curious as to what the 'correct' definition should be since your claim that it is 'homebrew' to claim that spells create material because the spell description says they create material.

And the reason I separated the responses was purposefull...to separate the unrelated topics.....
On this, specific topic, I do not think you will be able to provide any proof that the word 'create' has any meaning other than 'creation' I Note especially that you have not attempted to refute the claim. The sole refutation appears to be a non-specific claim that my specific detailed claims are wrong, that my demonstrated evidence is wrong....and that no evidence, or support for this refutation is needed beyond simply claiming that it is so.
This is an example of a whole host of logical fallacies....

And to be clear, if magic does what it says it does, then magic can create matter and energy. If it can create matter and energy, it has added to the sum total of energy. Thus my claim proves that magic adds to the sum total of energy in existence.
To prove that magic does NOT add to the sum total of energy in existence you would have to prove that my contention is false and that magic does not create matter.
Proving something that has meet its burden of proof false, requires more proof.
So...where is your proof of the falsity of my position?

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:You're confused on who's pushing a house rule there. The book does NOT say magic violates the law of conservation of matter and energy that is how you're house-ruling things because a few spells say they create something and you're spinning that as meaning they can actually produce matter and energy that never existed before which is not what the rules actually say. Same goes with your 'uh huh it so does!' fallacious statement that the books say magic does violate physics particularly the aforementioned law, the book does not state anything of the sort.

In any case that has nothing to do with the actual thread topic and is an irrelevant red herring, when the actual question is can one convert non-magical energies into magical energies and nothing in the books says it can't be done and to claim the books do say so is a demonstrably false claim. Lifeforms for example routinely convert the chemical energy released in processing food into PPE and a suitably researched device by an expert on magic and technology like a Techno-Wizard could certainly do the same thing: convert non-magical energy into magical energy.

I am not pushing anything.
You made the claim that we must follow the exact wording of the book, and only the wording of the book.
You then said that there was nothing in the book that supported the claim that magic breaks the rules of physics
I then point to he wording of the spell in the book is 'create' which does violate physics. And yes, it does say that it created the bread. The bread did not exist before or it would have been summoned. It could not have been made out of something else or it would be like the Create Water spell or the Create Wood spell, which describe the transformation process. This leaves .... creation. Any interpretation other than this, would require dismissing the canon words written, and substituting another word for it. That is the very definition of a house rule.

I am then told that it does not really apply? That a statement that something creates matter is not a violation of the Third Law of Thermodynamics? I would say that you don't get much more explicit than the combined statements that "magic is incomprehensible to science" and then, as an example of why....a spell that violates the Conservation of Energy. That's about as explicitly stated as "magic does not follow the rules of physics" as it gets!

And no I am sorry, its not a red herring. Part of the contention that a device can make PPE out of Electricity was that magic follows the same laws as physics and thus it was not just creating electricity but that it had to transform PPE into electricity. Remember? So yes, proof that magic does not follow the laws of physics, and that magic is indeed capable of (and does) create matter/energy is relevant since it throws out the premise that the electricity must be transformed and not created!

And then to top it off.....after all the complaints you have about how I am pushing non-book views (like what is printed) your counter argument is.... a house rule that has absolutely no book support at all about how PPE recovery works?

You say all that as if it means anything when it doesn't. The 'create' spells DON'T say that they violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy, YOU are saying that they do because the word 'create' is involved which simply does not have any validity to it. Just like you trying to insert your personal homebrew idea that magic energy is never used up and just kind of exists so anytime a spell is cast the magical energy brings into existence energy and matter that never existed before because you don't want magic energy behaving like every other energy and getting converted into non-magical energies. Sorry but no however much you try and insist on that making sense and actually being supported by the books it's just wrong. There is no way with any of what you've tossed out that you're going to make a successful argument that magical energy is so special it does work not only without being used up but even adds to the sum total of matter and energy in existence.

So what part then of the word "create" does not mean create? And what does it mean then?
I am curious as to what the 'correct' definition should be since your claim that it is 'homebrew' to claim that spells create material because the spell description says they create material.

The replicators of the Enterprise can make a cup of Earl Grey Hot for Picard anytime he asks, that does not mean they are violating the laws of conservation of matter and energy because they're creating things. There's no reason to think magic is violating that law either when a spell creates something which is why your claim that because it's creating something it must be violating that law fails on its face because it assumes something not proven as a given (that magic does violate that law) then tries to justify it with semantics.

eliakon wrote:And the reason I separated the responses was purposefull...to separate the unrelated topics.....
On this, specific topic, I do not think you will be able to provide any proof that the word 'create' has any meaning other than 'creation' I Note especially that you have not attempted to refute the claim. The sole refutation appears to be a non-specific claim that my specific detailed claims are wrong, that my demonstrated evidence is wrong....and that no evidence, or support for this refutation is needed beyond simply claiming that it is so.
This is an example of a whole host of logical fallacies....

I've yet to see you provide proof of your claim that 'create' means what you claim, only your non-specific claims and fallacies to my specific detailed rebuttals. You've not demonstrated that magic violates the law of conservation of energy and matter you've only claimed that's what you believe is the case based on the spells being said to create things which isn't even remotely proof of anything other than you don't want to even acknowledge let alone admit that magic creating something no more constitutes proof of violation of that law than the replicators on the Enterprise do.

eliakon wrote:And to be clear, if magic does what it says it does, then magic can create matter and energy. If it can create matter and energy, it has added to the sum total of energy. Thus my claim proves that magic adds to the sum total of energy in existence.
To prove that magic does NOT add to the sum total of energy in existence you would have to prove that my contention is false and that magic does not create matter.
Proving something that has meet its burden of proof false, requires more proof.
So...where is your proof of the falsity of my position?

No, your claim doesn't prove anything since it requires something that's unproven to be true to be valid, not sure which fallacy that is exactly ('begs the question' perhaps) but it's very much a fallacy. You're trying to prove your claim by saying your claim must be true because it's necessary for your claim to be true and that's just not going to fly. The burden falls on you to prove your claim that magic violates any particular physical law especially a particular law you're claiming it does to validate your claim, and 'well I need this to be how I need it to be to validate my claim' isn't proof. So your 'I need create spells to violate the law of conservation of matter and energy to validate my claim that magic does so so they must' just fails. You need them to violate the law, the spells themselves don't say that they do only you say that they do therefor you don't have any actual concrete proof since again your only proof is that you need them to do so so you insist that they must.

Prysus wrote:

Nightmask wrote:You've got that on the wrong side there, the books don't say you can't so claims you can't are demonstrably false. Same with claims that magical energy somehow violates the laws of physics or that it's a special energy that non-magical energies can't be converted into.

Greetings and Salutations. Agreed, the book doesn't say we can't, so it doesn't mean that we can't (by the book). However, your stance that if the book doesn't say we can't means we can is ALSO false. If the book doesn't say we can or can't, then the book doesn't say and it's a house rule.

However, since you tried to say that's wrong, let's view things only your way: "the books don't say you can't so claims you can't are demonstrably false"

By your logic, the book doesn't say human beings can't fly naturally, so they can (and any claims they can't are false).
By your logic, the book doesn't say that Elves can't shoot laser beams out of their eyes doing 3D6x10 damage, so they can (and any claims they can't are false).
By your logic, the book doesn't say that Dwarves can't destroy the universe by wiggling their nose, so they can (and any claims they can't are false).

Except all of those are untrue (at least by any degree of competence), because the book tends to say what you can do instead of what you can't (though that is not a perfect rule either). This is why I say if it doesn't say you can or can't, it's a house rule. This is also why people make the (accurate statement) that by the rules, you cannot move in combat (because the combat sequence doesn't allow for it). This is by the rules, and not including common/accepted house rules.

That's not actually my logic though, a strawman perhaps but not actually my logic. I believe I have mentioned one of the basic rules at least once that unless proven otherwise things follow the general rules of our reality, which is why among other things suns run on nuclear fusion due and gravity pulls matter towards each other. So since dwarves and elves aren't real things we can only go by what we're explicitly told they can do along with those things one can reasonably expect them to have compared to other living things (so eyebeam lasers and universe-destroying nose-wiggling is right out). Since magic isn't a real thing we have to go by what we're told magic can do and we aren't told it can or does violate the conservation of matter and energy, nor are we told that you can't take non-magical energy and turn it into magical energy when energy generally can be transformed from one form into another or even into matter.

Prysus wrote:

Nightmask wrote:And what do you think resting lifeforms are doing but processing chemical energy from food into the energies required for its various functions including generating PPE?

Okay, I'll try to break down a few of the multitude of reasons why your version is a house rule.

1: The book doesn't say this is how it works (see above).
2: This version only works if we ONLY process food while resting, and the body does NOTHING else during rest. If the body performs ANY other processes during rest, it could just as easily be any of these other processes. Your logic comes down to because we process food while we rest, that MUST be the cause of P.P.E. restoration, but that's flawed logic.
3: That only works if the body can ONLY process food while resting (in Palladium terms, that requires a full hour). So, by your logic, if I wake up, eat breakfast, walk to work, spend hours working, take a 15 minute break, return to work, take a half an hour lunch, return to work, take a 15 minute break, return to work, walk home, do work around the house, stop for 30 minutes to eat dinner, do more work around the house (spend all night doing it and never get any rest), eat breakfast, and repeat the cycle all over again ... my body hasn't processed ANY food whatsoever (even though I continue to eat). Apparently the body is just storing the food unable to process it. So if I don't stop and rest for an hour or more, my body is unable to process any food whatsoever. Because if my body WAS processing food, per your logic, it would also be converting it into P.P.E. (but the book says that it won't happen unless we rest for an hour or more).
4: Mages are stated (per the book) to have 10 to 50 times more P.P.E. than the average person, which means to replenish their P.P.E. they'd need to eat 10 to 50 times more (though the exact conversion rate is unclear, but they'd have to eat a proportionally larger amount of food), and at no point does the book even hint this might be the case. Magic users in your game must have similar eating habits of the Flash (or Saiyans).
5: Let's take your logic and place it into a hypothetical scenario. A LLW goes on a fast (or just can't find food) for WEEKS. For the purposes of this example, I'll provide exact times (though it would be nigh impossible to know this in real life). In 1 hour and 1 minute, the LLW will die of starvation. Currently, for whatever reason, he's at 0 P.P.E. So he decides to meditate for an hour (this gains him 15 P.P.E.). With one minute to go, on death's door, he casts Sustain. He now has at least a day to survive, and will feel revived. So, let's say he decides to meditate for 4 hours of that day. That restores 60 P.P.E. So, by your laws of energy and conservation, the LLW turned 15 P.P.E. into a day (or if higher level, even more days of food even though the energy output is the exact same), turned it into food, which then turned into 60+ P.P.E. (with plenty to spare). Does this look even to you? Note: Also, per your logic, the LLW should've died FASTER as a result of converting more food into P.P.E. (and as a result depleted his life sustaining energy even faster), though once again zero indication that this is the case.

I think I had a few more examples, but my mind has started to wander due to boredom. Farewell and safe journeys to all.

Given none of those things are actually my logic and I'm quite bored myself having to repeat myself particularly regarding such distractions when my main points regarding the actual topic are ignored I'm not going to bother rehashing anything else here that will also be ignored.

Seriously, as I've said before if you don't want some Techno-Wizard creating a PPE generator that's fine, GM's Prerogative on that point is quite valid, but there is no canon in the books that it can't be done and if you insist on only those things that are canon being allowed then you're in a bad place because by canon there is no rule that says you can't. So if you don't want such a thing in your game I guess you'll just have to price it out of reach for the PC because you aren't going to be able to point to any rule that says it can't be done or bootstrap other rules into it saying so.

So, we done or will we do a few more rounds of this?

Prysus wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Prysus wrote:

Nightmask wrote:...when the actual question is can one convert non-magical energies into magical energies and nothing in the books says it can't be done and to claim the books do say so is a demonstrably false claim.

Greetings and Salutations. This is true. And the book doesn't say we can, so any claims it is allowed by the book are also false. At best, it's undefined and left to G.M. call/house rule.

You've got that on the wrong side there

So which part is wrong? The part in red (if that's wrong, then what you're saying is that you were wrong in the part I quoted)? The part in blue (and if you're saying that's wrong, you're making the claim that you're trying to claim that you're not making)? Or the part in green (and if that's wrong, that would mean that anything NOT stated in the book is automatically canon ... which makes very little sense at all)?

I'm not going to waste time cluttering things up responding to the entire post, just this part by noting next time do include the entire response instead of truncating it to make it look as if I didn't actually give a complete explanation and response when in fact I did.

Nightmask wrote:I'm not going to waste time cluttering things up responding to the entire post, just this part by noting next time do include the entire response instead of truncating it to make it look as if I didn't actually give a complete explanation and response when in fact I did.

Greetings and Salutations. The rest just repeated your quote I said was accurate, and then started talking about things I never said (unless you made it up in your head). So where was I wrong? You didn't address that the first time, nor this time.

Your "explanation" would be the equivalent of my quoting you and then saying: "You got that wrong, I only truncated you. Chipmunks are also cute." That's not an explanation. That's claiming someone is wrong, repeating something not in contention, and then going off on a random tangent that has nothing to do with what was said.

oger333 wrote:could one build a device to convert energy in to p.p.e ? and or the other way around .

While the PPE to energy bit exists, if you have access to the Unexpurgated Cyberpunk Referee's Guide, then take a look at page 29. You're wanting to create a level 3 invention, which would be the equivalent of being the first to build an atom bomb. The item you wish to build is a history/planet-changing development. If the players are driving this idea, let them know it's something that should take decades of R&D to create, and they'd have to dedicate large portions of their day to it, to the point of having to give up adventuring, or whatever it is they do. They'd also need a large amount of capital to invest with (again, like the atom bomb). You should also role play it out in real-time to drive in the point.

If you're the GM, and you're wanting to make such a device, consider the implications of such a device for a magic-orientated society. Atlantis, the FoM, the Phoenix Empire, and the Yama Kings would all love to get their hands on such a device, and hey wouldn't be the only ones. You're essentially turning a nuclear power source into a massive talisman, with god-only-knows amounts of available PPE. Plus not to mention the fact that conceivably the PCs couold end up getting their hands on it. Ask every GM how well it turns out for their game when the PCs get their mitts on an uber-tech device.

Now, I'm not saying you can or can't make it, just think about the ramifications to your game and your game world first.

The Beast wrote:

oger333 wrote:could one build a device to convert energy in to p.p.e ? and or the other way around .

While the PPE to energy bit exists, if you have access to the Unexpurgated Cyberpunk Referee's Guide, then take a look at page 29. You're wanting to create a level 3 invention, which would be the equivalent of being the first to build an atom bomb. The item you wish to build is a history/planet-changing development. If the players are driving this idea, let them know it's something that should take decades of R&D to create, and they'd have to dedicate large portions of their day to it, to the point of having to give up adventuring, or whatever it is they do. They'd also need a large amount of capital to invest with (again, like the atom bomb). You should also role play it out in real-time to drive in the point.

If you're the GM, and you're wanting to make such a device, consider the implications of such a device for a magic-orientated society. Atlantis, the FoM, the Phoenix Empire, and the Yama Kings would all love to get their hands on such a device, and hey wouldn't be the only ones. You're essentially turning a nuclear power source into a massive talisman, with god-only-knows amounts of available PPE. Plus not to mention the fact that conceivably the PCs couold end up getting their hands on it. Ask every GM how well it turns out for their game when the PCs get their mitts on an uber-tech device.

Now, I'm not saying you can or can't make it, just think about the ramifications to your game and your game world first.

A bit of a stretch to equate it to being a world-changing thing, there are things that generate PPE all over the place from Ley Lines to nearly every living being (the only case I know of where they don't is that one race in the Phase World setting that sealed away all its magical potential so they have no PPE to speak of). Having a device that could do it isn't a revolutionary world-changing thing.

Nightmask wrote:

The Beast wrote:

oger333 wrote:could one build a device to convert energy in to p.p.e ? and or the other way around .

While the PPE to energy bit exists, if you have access to the Unexpurgated Cyberpunk Referee's Guide, then take a look at page 29. You're wanting to create a level 3 invention, which would be the equivalent of being the first to build an atom bomb. The item you wish to build is a history/planet-changing development. If the players are driving this idea, let them know it's something that should take decades of R&D to create, and they'd have to dedicate large portions of their day to it, to the point of having to give up adventuring, or whatever it is they do. They'd also need a large amount of capital to invest with (again, like the atom bomb). You should also role play it out in real-time to drive in the point.

If you're the GM, and you're wanting to make such a device, consider the implications of such a device for a magic-orientated society. Atlantis, the FoM, the Phoenix Empire, and the Yama Kings would all love to get their hands on such a device, and hey wouldn't be the only ones. You're essentially turning a nuclear power source into a massive talisman, with god-only-knows amounts of available PPE. Plus not to mention the fact that conceivably the PCs couold end up getting their hands on it. Ask every GM how well it turns out for their game when the PCs get their mitts on an uber-tech device.

Now, I'm not saying you can or can't make it, just think about the ramifications to your game and your game world first.

A bit of a stretch to equate it to being a world-changing thing, there are things that generate PPE all over the place from Ley Lines to nearly every living being (the only case I know of where they don't is that one race in the Phase World setting that sealed away all its magical potential so they have no PPE to speak of). Having a device that could do it isn't a revolutionary world-changing thing.

There are volcanoes in nature.
But being able to effectively build your own would be revolutionary.

Right now, mages wanting to cast a massive spell in Rifts Earth would have to wait for the right time of year, be at a nexus, and/or have a crapload of followers and/or sacrifice something.

Technology that would let them just tap into a nuclear power supply for the PPE would indeed be world-changing.

Nightmask wrote:the books don't say you can't so claims you can't are demonstrably false. Same with claims that magical energy somehow violates the laws of physics or that it's a special energy that non-magical energies can't be converted into.

We sort of do have an example of non-magical energy changing into that: life. Plants (and everything else up the food chain) have PPE which comes from the processes of life, absorbing sun and CO2 in their case, or oxygen and consuming organic matter in animal cases.

Technological PPE-generation would basically just be done via raising life en masse in an organized manner, like how machines grew humans in The Matrix. Cloning is probably a good example of this.

The designs still have to emulate life to be alive, but life is compiled from raw materials which are not themselves alive on their own.

Would be interesting to know just how far down the plant or animal chain one would have to go before fractions of 1 PPE became 0 PPE.

eliakon wrote:Rest is involved, not food.
Lifeforms that are resting, but not converting get PPE
Lifeforms that are converting but not resting get PPE
Lifeforms that do not eat food get PPE
Ergo, the recovery of PPE is not connected to the processing of the chemical energy of food. Its an unrelated issue.

I wouldn't say unrelated. Except for magical beings who can survive without food, it is part of what keeps them alive. Someone who starves to death is no longer able to generate PPE. Course the same applies if they are deprived of water or oxygen, after a time that they use up their internal reserves.

The whole question is silly. It is predicated on the assumption that Magic is just another energy state and not based in the Supernatural/Mystical and that any Joe Blow can create it.

SpiritInterface wrote:The whole question is silly. It is predicated on the assumption that Magic is just another energy state and not based in the Supernatural/Mystical and that any Joe Blow can create it.

No, it's predicated on the idea that Techno-Wizards, who routinely build things combining magic and technology, should be able to create a device that's combining magic and technology in order to create magical energy from non-magical energy and not that any 'Joe Blow' can create it. Even though EVERY Joe Blow does actually create magical energy, along with other energies such as heat and radiowaves.

Nightmask wrote:

SpiritInterface wrote:The whole question is silly. It is predicated on the assumption that Magic is just another energy state and not based in the Supernatural/Mystical and that any Joe Blow can create it.

No, it's predicated on the idea that Techno-Wizards, who routinely build things combining magic and technology, should be able to create a device that's combining magic and technology in order to create magical energy from non-magical energy and not that any 'Joe Blow' can create it. Even though EVERY Joe Blow does actually create magical energy, along with other energies such as heat and radiowaves.

Its predicated on the idea that magic works a certain way. That magic is just another form of energy and that a sufficiently skilled person can turn the one to the other and back with out any problem.

Which means its sort of a circular argument
Basically we are left with....
If magic is just a form of energy that can be changed at will then a TW can change it at will
If magic is not just a form of energy that can be changed at will then a TW can not change it at will

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

SpiritInterface wrote:The whole question is silly. It is predicated on the assumption that Magic is just another energy state and not based in the Supernatural/Mystical and that any Joe Blow can create it.

No, it's predicated on the idea that Techno-Wizards, who routinely build things combining magic and technology, should be able to create a device that's combining magic and technology in order to create magical energy from non-magical energy and not that any 'Joe Blow' can create it. Even though EVERY Joe Blow does actually create magical energy, along with other energies such as heat and radiowaves.

Its predicated on the idea that magic works a certain way. That magic is just another form of energy and that a sufficiently skilled person can turn the one to the other and back with out any problem.

Which means its sort of a circular argument
Basically we are left with....
If magic is just a form of energy that can be changed at will then a TW can change it at will
If magic is not just a form of energy that can be changed at will then a TW can not change it at will

Well we know magical energy can be changed at will because it's routinely changed anytime a spell is cast to produce whatever effects it produce, you can't both use and not use it. We know that Techno-Wizards routinely make devices that change magical energy into non-magical energy (like the generators that can power anything from a house to a small town). There isn't anything about magical energy that should make anyone think that someone like a techno-wizard couldn't make a non-magical-to-magical energy converter, that kind of thing is their bailiwick.

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

SpiritInterface wrote:The whole question is silly. It is predicated on the assumption that Magic is just another energy state and not based in the Supernatural/Mystical and that any Joe Blow can create it.

No, it's predicated on the idea that Techno-Wizards, who routinely build things combining magic and technology, should be able to create a device that's combining magic and technology in order to create magical energy from non-magical energy and not that any 'Joe Blow' can create it. Even though EVERY Joe Blow does actually create magical energy, along with other energies such as heat and radiowaves.

Its predicated on the idea that magic works a certain way. That magic is just another form of energy and that a sufficiently skilled person can turn the one to the other and back with out any problem.

Which means its sort of a circular argument
Basically we are left with....
If magic is just a form of energy that can be changed at will then a TW can change it at will
If magic is not just a form of energy that can be changed at will then a TW can not change it at will

Well we know magical energy can be changed at will because it's routinely changed anytime a spell is cast to produce whatever effects it produce, you can't both use and not use it. We know that Techno-Wizards routinely make devices that change magical energy into non-magical energy (like the generators that can power anything from a house to a small town). There isn't anything about magical energy that should make anyone think that someone like a techno-wizard couldn't make a non-magical-to-magical energy converter, that kind of thing is their bailiwick.

And now we are back to the argument that we just had for two pages...in specific
1) what is magic
2) how does magic work
3) what is the source of magic
4) how is energy generated when magic is used.

The stance that its changed into energy is one stance, but not the only one. There is the other (equally supported) stance that magic is used to CREATE energy.
If it is transformed into energy then the process may be (or may not be) reversible
If it is used to create energy then the process would not be reversible
Thus answering the question of 'can a TW do this' would first require answering "what is magic" then answering "how does magic make energy" THEN you would have enough information to answer "And is that process reversible"

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

SpiritInterface wrote:The whole question is silly. It is predicated on the assumption that Magic is just another energy state and not based in the Supernatural/Mystical and that any Joe Blow can create it.

No, it's predicated on the idea that Techno-Wizards, who routinely build things combining magic and technology, should be able to create a device that's combining magic and technology in order to create magical energy from non-magical energy and not that any 'Joe Blow' can create it. Even though EVERY Joe Blow does actually create magical energy, along with other energies such as heat and radiowaves.

Its predicated on the idea that magic works a certain way. That magic is just another form of energy and that a sufficiently skilled person can turn the one to the other and back with out any problem.

Which means its sort of a circular argument
Basically we are left with....
If magic is just a form of energy that can be changed at will then a TW can change it at will
If magic is not just a form of energy that can be changed at will then a TW can not change it at will

Well we know magical energy can be changed at will because it's routinely changed anytime a spell is cast to produce whatever effects it produce, you can't both use and not use it. We know that Techno-Wizards routinely make devices that change magical energy into non-magical energy (like the generators that can power anything from a house to a small town). There isn't anything about magical energy that should make anyone think that someone like a techno-wizard couldn't make a non-magical-to-magical energy converter, that kind of thing is their bailiwick.

And now we are back to the argument that we just had for two pages...in specific
1) what is magic
2) how does magic work
3) what is the source of magic
4) how is energy generated when magic is used.

The stance that its changed into energy is one stance, but not the only one. There is the other (equally supported) stance that magic is used to CREATE energy.

No, that's not a supported stance. The arguments attempting to support that stance are circular and basically assume that they must be true in order to validate the claimed stance rather than being proven to actually have support (nothing shows that magic isn't actually being used and converted into energy rather than somehow being simultaneously used and not-used and violating fundamental laws to literally make matter and energy that never existed before).

eliakon wrote:If it is transformed into energy then the process may be (or may not be) reversible
If it is used to create energy then the process would not be reversible
Thus answering the question of 'can a TW do this' would first require answering "what is magic" then answering "how does magic make energy" THEN you would have enough information to answer "And is that process reversible"

Except that we know it's not actually creating new energy or new matter that never existed before, since we see magic going into the spell or device and coming out as energy. There is nothing one can point to and say that the magic isn't actually being used up and converted into the desired result, certainly one can't expect to play with semantics and go 'well they used the word 'create' so it can only mean it's violating the law of conservation of matter and energy and adding new matter and energy to the universe' and expect it to be taken seriously. We can see magic go in and energy come out, what we don't see is PPE go in, the same PPE come out AND energy on top of that.

But as we've noted before we're not going to agree on this, since you can't meet the minimum burden of proof necessary to support your claims and try to argue things that aren't in evidence as if they are. If you ever do though I will certainly consider it but nothing so far qualifies.

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:No, it's predicated on the idea that Techno-Wizards, who routinely build things combining magic and technology, should be able to create a device that's combining magic and technology in order to create magical energy from non-magical energy and not that any 'Joe Blow' can create it. Even though EVERY Joe Blow does actually create magical energy, along with other energies such as heat and radiowaves.

Its predicated on the idea that magic works a certain way. That magic is just another form of energy and that a sufficiently skilled person can turn the one to the other and back with out any problem.

Which means its sort of a circular argument
Basically we are left with....
If magic is just a form of energy that can be changed at will then a TW can change it at will
If magic is not just a form of energy that can be changed at will then a TW can not change it at will

Well we know magical energy can be changed at will because it's routinely changed anytime a spell is cast to produce whatever effects it produce, you can't both use and not use it. We know that Techno-Wizards routinely make devices that change magical energy into non-magical energy (like the generators that can power anything from a house to a small town). There isn't anything about magical energy that should make anyone think that someone like a techno-wizard couldn't make a non-magical-to-magical energy converter, that kind of thing is their bailiwick.

And now we are back to the argument that we just had for two pages...in specific
1) what is magic
2) how does magic work
3) what is the source of magic
4) how is energy generated when magic is used.

The stance that its changed into energy is one stance, but not the only one. There is the other (equally supported) stance that magic is used to CREATE energy.

No, that's not a supported stance. The arguments attempting to support that stance are circular and basically assume that they must be true in order to validate the claimed stance rather than being proven to actually have support (nothing shows that magic isn't actually being used and converted into energy rather than somehow being simultaneously used and not-used and violating fundamental laws to literally make matter and energy that never existed before).

eliakon wrote:If it is transformed into energy then the process may be (or may not be) reversible
If it is used to create energy then the process would not be reversible
Thus answering the question of 'can a TW do this' would first require answering "what is magic" then answering "how does magic make energy" THEN you would have enough information to answer "And is that process reversible"

Except that we know it's not actually creating new energy or new matter that never existed before, since we see magic going into the spell or device and coming out as energy.

Only if you choose to interpret magic as working that way. Which is to say you argue that magic = physics (which the books say is not true)

Nightmask wrote:There is nothing one can point to and say that the magic isn't actually being used up and converted into the desired result

You mean other than the fact that there is not a single line of text anywhere that says that magic energy is transformed into the end product

Nightmask wrote:certainly one can't expect to play with semantics and go 'well they used the word 'create' so it can only mean it's violating the law of conservation of matter and energy and adding new matter and energy to the universe' and expect it to be taken seriously.

When the book says that it creates something
AND when the book says that it defies science
Then the logic is that the book is right. It is up to YOU to prove that the book is wrong. (simply saying "I don't like what is written, so I will change it to say something else that means what I want it to" is not a logicial argument)

Nightmask wrote:We can see magic go in and energy come out, what we don't see is PPE go in, the same PPE come out AND energy on top of that.

Half right. We see usable PPE expended to perform/power magic effects, and those magic effects have something happen. We do not know what happens to the PPE after word. It could be converted, or it could be dispersed back to the 'cosmic pool' or maybe it travels to the nearest ley line to gather up and be recycled.....
But the point is that there is not enough information to KNOW. (And there is not one WORD that says that it is converted into its effects)

Nightmask wrote:But as we've noted before we're not going to agree on this, since you can't meet the minimum burden of proof necessary to support your claims and try to argue things that aren't in evidence as if they are. If you ever do though I will certainly consider it but nothing so far qualifies.

I don't think you understand what the word 'burden of proof' means.
I have shown
1) that the books say magic violates the laws of physics
2) that magic is explicatly said to create things
3) that magic is not said to be transformed into energy
4) with page citations
That is the burden of proof. I have defended my presumptive claim. To argue that you need to then provide your own proof. Proof is evidence not "well I don't like that" or "I don't agree" or "that's not true" You have to actually be able to point to a book and say "No here in book x on page y it says this and that counters your claim of z"
When you can do that we can have a logical debate. Until then its just you dismissing all evidence that is contrary to your stance as 'nuh uh'
(just to be clear the statement

Nightmask wrote:You say all that as if it means anything when it doesn't.

is not proof that a statement is wrong.....)

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:Its predicated on the idea that magic works a certain way. That magic is just another form of energy and that a sufficiently skilled person can turn the one to the other and back with out any problem.

Which means its sort of a circular argument
Basically we are left with....
If magic is just a form of energy that can be changed at will then a TW can change it at will
If magic is not just a form of energy that can be changed at will then a TW can not change it at will

Well we know magical energy can be changed at will because it's routinely changed anytime a spell is cast to produce whatever effects it produce, you can't both use and not use it. We know that Techno-Wizards routinely make devices that change magical energy into non-magical energy (like the generators that can power anything from a house to a small town). There isn't anything about magical energy that should make anyone think that someone like a techno-wizard couldn't make a non-magical-to-magical energy converter, that kind of thing is their bailiwick.

And now we are back to the argument that we just had for two pages...in specific
1) what is magic
2) how does magic work
3) what is the source of magic
4) how is energy generated when magic is used.

The stance that its changed into energy is one stance, but not the only one. There is the other (equally supported) stance that magic is used to CREATE energy.

No, that's not a supported stance. The arguments attempting to support that stance are circular and basically assume that they must be true in order to validate the claimed stance rather than being proven to actually have support (nothing shows that magic isn't actually being used and converted into energy rather than somehow being simultaneously used and not-used and violating fundamental laws to literally make matter and energy that never existed before).

eliakon wrote:If it is transformed into energy then the process may be (or may not be) reversible
If it is used to create energy then the process would not be reversible
Thus answering the question of 'can a TW do this' would first require answering "what is magic" then answering "how does magic make energy" THEN you would have enough information to answer "And is that process reversible"

Except that we know it's not actually creating new energy or new matter that never existed before, since we see magic going into the spell or device and coming out as energy.

Only if you choose to interpret magic as working that way. Which is to say you argue that magic = physics (which the books say is not true)

The books don't say that.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:There is nothing one can point to and say that the magic isn't actually being used up and converted into the desired result

You mean other than the fact that there is not a single line of text anywhere that says that magic energy is transformed into the end product

Because there's no need for such a redundant statement, PPE (magical energy) is spent, i.e. used the only logical conclusion is the magical energy is used up in producing the end result.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:certainly one can't expect to play with semantics and go 'well they used the word 'create' so it can only mean it's violating the law of conservation of matter and energy and adding new matter and energy to the universe' and expect it to be taken seriously.

When the book says that it creates something
AND when the book says that it defies science
Then the logic is that the book is right. It is up to YOU to prove that the book is wrong. (simply saying "I don't like what is written, so I will change it to say something else that means what I want it to" is not a logicial argument)

Except for the small problem that your claim that the book says magic creates energy from nothing and is not used up or converted into other energies is that the book doesn't even remotely say that. The FACT is the book doesn't say that magical energy isn't used up and doesn't get converted into the energy it brings about nor does it say that the spells that create things are violating the physical laws in that regard either. That's YOU saying that's what you THINK the books are saying because you've an end result of 'magic is special, so special it's a finite and immutable energy that can do things but never be used up'.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:We can see magic go in and energy come out, what we don't see is PPE go in, the same PPE come out AND energy on top of that.

Half right. We see usable PPE expended to perform/power magic effects, and those magic effects have something happen. We do not know what happens to the PPE after word. It could be converted, or it could be dispersed back to the 'cosmic pool' or maybe it travels to the nearest ley line to gather up and be recycled.....
But the point is that there is not enough information to KNOW. (And there is not one WORD that says that it is converted into its effects)

You're resorting to word games and fallacies there. A spell is cast, PPE is used up, and without anything to support the implausible things you keep suggesting we must go with the simplest and most reasonable conclusion, since by observation we see PPE used up and spell effects happen then the PPE is converted into whatever energies or work the spell outputs. Otherwise you might as well argue magical undetectable pixies just happen to come along when a spell is cast and rush about doing all the work with the PPE as payment because it's as equally unprovable and unsupported by what we do so.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:But as we've noted before we're not going to agree on this, since you can't meet the minimum burden of proof necessary to support your claims and try to argue things that aren't in evidence as if they are. If you ever do though I will certainly consider it but nothing so far qualifies.

I don't think you understand what the word 'burden of proof' means.
I have shown
1) that the books say magic violates the laws of physics
2) that magic is explicatly said to create things
3) that magic is not said to be transformed into energy
4) with page citations
That is the burden of proof. I have defended my presumptive claim. To argue that you need to then provide your own proof. Proof is evidence not "well I don't like that" or "I don't agree" or "that's not true" You have to actually be able to point to a book and say "No here in book x on page y it says this and that counters your claim of z"
When you can do that we can have a logical debate. Until then its just you dismissing all evidence that is contrary to your stance as 'nuh uh'
(just to be clear the statement

Nightmask wrote:You say all that as if it means anything when it doesn't.

is not proof that a statement is wrong.....)

1) The books don't say magic violates the laws of conversation of matter and energy.
2) The books again don't say magic violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy when it creates things, you assemble a clock from a collection of parts you've created a clock but at no point did you violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy to create said clock.
3) It doesn't have to be said, that's explicitly obvious when you cast a spell and energy is the result.
4)Which were meaningless since none of those citations actually say anything that actually supports what you claim.

And the burden you've failed to meet. You've provided no proof that magic is not used up and converted into other energies when a spell is cast, you've provided no proof that it violates the conservation of matter and energy, and you've provided no proof that someone like a techno-wizard can't make a device that turns non-magical energies into magical energies. All you've provided is your spin on how you want to see things to support your conclusion.

'Hey they said this spell creates something I can claim that's proof that it's violating the conservation of matter and energy because it's magic and I've already concluded magic does that' doesn't constitute proof, the spells don't say that explicitly or implicitly. You see magic spent, you see a result, you don't see proof the magic isn't being used up or converted because you've seen it used up. You might as well claim there's no proof that sunlight falling on a photocell isn't converted into electrical energy and that some mysterious thing happens in between that no sunlight is converted and that mysterious thing that shows up is doing it instead and carrying off the sunlight which remains inviolate.

Seriously, you wouldn't use these kinds of arguments anywhere else because they're so patently unsupportable why do you think they'd be any more useful here?

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:Only if you choose to interpret magic as working that way. Which is to say you argue that magic = physics (which the books say is not true)

The books don't say that.

That is what the statement "incomprehensible to science means'
It is, well incomprehensible. Physics is comprehensible to science. Chemistry is comprehensible. Magic though....it is incomprehensible.
It doesn't get much clearer than that

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:There is nothing one can point to and say that the magic isn't actually being used up and converted into the desired result

You mean other than the fact that there is not a single line of text anywhere that says that magic energy is transformed into the end product

Because there's no need for such a redundant statement, PPE (magical energy) is spent, i.e. used the only logical conclusion is the magical energy is used up in producing the end result.

That is not how logic works though.
Logic does not say "well there isn't anything that says what I want to support. But since it is one of many plausible outcome, then we will just say its the only one."
As I have said there are other options on how it works. If there are other options provided, then it is, by definition, not 'the only logical conclusion'
Also please note that 'used up in producing the end result' =/= 'is transformed into the output'

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:certainly one can't expect to play with semantics and go 'well they used the word 'create' so it can only mean it's violating the law of conservation of matter and energy and adding new matter and energy to the universe' and expect it to be taken seriously.

When the book says that it creates something
AND when the book says that it defies science
Then the logic is that the book is right. It is up to YOU to prove that the book is wrong. (simply saying "I don't like what is written, so I will change it to say something else that means what I want it to" is not a logicial argument)

Except for the small problem that your claim that the book says magic creates energy from nothing and is not used up or converted into other energies is that the book doesn't even remotely say that. The FACT is the book doesn't say that magical energy isn't used up and doesn't get converted into the energy it brings about nor does it say that the spells that create things are violating the physical laws in that regard either. That's YOU saying that's what you THINK the books are saying because you've an end result of 'magic is special, so special it's a finite and immutable energy that can do things but never be used up'.

*Sigh*
1) the book does say that it creates things. As I have said the book says 'creates' The burden of proof is on you to prove that the words the book use (Creates) do not in fact mean create, but instead really mean transform.
2)the book does not say that magic is used up either. Thus a contention that PPE is used up is an affirmative contention, and requires proof to support it.
3) Simply saying "no" is not a logical rebuttal.

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:We can see magic go in and energy come out, what we don't see is PPE go in, the same PPE come out AND energy on top of that.

Half right. We see usable PPE expended to perform/power magic effects, and those magic effects have something happen. We do not know what happens to the PPE after word. It could be converted, or it could be dispersed back to the 'cosmic pool' or maybe it travels to the nearest ley line to gather up and be recycled.....
But the point is that there is not enough information to KNOW. (And there is not one WORD that says that it is converted into its effects)

You're resorting to word games and fallacies there. A spell is cast, PPE is used up, and without anything to support the implausible things you keep suggesting we must go with the simplest and most reasonable conclusion, since by observation we see PPE used up and spell effects happen then the PPE is converted into whatever energies or work the spell outputs. Otherwise you might as well argue magical undetectable pixies just happen to come along when a spell is cast and rush about doing all the work with the PPE as payment because it's as equally unprovable and unsupported by what we do so.

Claiming that "well this one option that I like is obviously correct because I like it better than any other" is logical is a fallacy.
The only thing that the books support is that PPE is used to produce magical effects.
It is YOUR personal contention that it works a specific way. The fact is that there are other ways that it could work. That means that you will need to support your contention.
And the most important thing here is to note that you are coflating two different claims

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:But as we've noted before we're not going to agree on this, since you can't meet the minimum burden of proof necessary to support your claims and try to argue things that aren't in evidence as if they are. If you ever do though I will certainly consider it but nothing so far qualifies.

I don't think you understand what the word 'burden of proof' means.
I have shown
1) that the books say magic violates the laws of physics
2) that magic is explicatly said to create things
3) that magic is not said to be transformed into energy
4) with page citations
That is the burden of proof. I have defended my presumptive claim. To argue that you need to then provide your own proof. Proof is evidence not "well I don't like that" or "I don't agree" or "that's not true" You have to actually be able to point to a book and say "No here in book x on page y it says this and that counters your claim of z"
When you can do that we can have a logical debate. Until then its just you dismissing all evidence that is contrary to your stance as 'nuh uh'
(just to be clear the statement

Nightmask wrote:You say all that as if it means anything when it doesn't.

is not proof that a statement is wrong.....)

1) The books don't say magic violates the laws of conversation of matter and energy.

False. The books explicitly say that magic is incomprehensible to science. The books explicity say that magic can create things. Thus magic is not only not bound to the laws of physics but demonstrably violates it.

Nightmask wrote:2) The books again don't say magic violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy when it creates things, you assemble a clock from a collection of parts you've created a clock but at no point did you violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy to create said clock.

Then it is up to you to prove that this is how it works. The books say it creates something. Some of them describe how that creation works. Some of them do not have any description other than 'create'

Nightmask wrote:3) It doesn't have to be said, that's explicitly obvious when you cast a spell and energy is the result.

False. If you want the PPE to be transformedinto energy you will need some support for that. Otherwise all we know is that you cast a spell and you get energy. But we do not know HOW that is done. And it is false to claim otherwise.

Nightmask wrote:4)Which were meaningless since none of those citations actually say anything that actually supports what you claim.

As I have said repeatedly simply saying "no I don't like that" is not proof of a failure of my evidence
To counter my claims you will need to actually provide evidence that counters my evidence. That's how it works.

Nightmask wrote:And the burden you've failed to meet. You've provided no proof that magic is not used up and converted into other energies when a spell is cast

That's not how it works though.
1) the burden of proof is on you to prove that your affirmative claim (Magic is used up and transformed into other energies) I do not have to prove your claim false you have to prove your claim true. (you have yet to do this)
2) I have provided support for my contention that magic is NOT converted into other energies, but instead those energies are created on the spot. Simply ignoring my claim does not mean that my claim is not there.

Nightmask wrote: you've provided no proof that it violates the conservation of matter and energy

You mean besides other than quoting the book?

Nightmask wrote:and you've provided no proof that someone like a techno-wizard can't make a device that turns non-magical energies into magical energies

Again two issues
1) I don't have to prove your theory is wrong, it is your job to prove it right (you have yet to provide contextual support for your claim. Which means that you have sill not met your burden of proof)
2) If my contention IS right, then that is proof that a TW cant made a device to turn non-magical energy into magical energy. Because if my contention is true then magical energy is never turned into non-magical energy in the first place. And thus if there is no transformation one way, then it can never be reversed.

Nightmask wrote: All you've provided is your spin on how you want to see things to support your conclusion.

Actually I have provided citations from the book. However all you have done is argue that my citations are wrong. You have never provided support for this, just spin and argumentation that I am wrong and that your view is right....

Nightmask wrote:'Hey they said this spell creates something I can claim that's proof that it's violating the conservation of matter and energy because it's magic and I've already concluded magic does that' doesn't constitute proof, the spells don't say that explicitly or implicitly.

Magic is explicitly said to not follow the law of science (incomprehensible to science)
It says it creates. It is up to you to prove that those (factually cited) claims are wrong. Simply disliking them doesn't do it.

Nightmask wrote: You see magic spent, you see a result, you don't see proof the magic isn't being used up or converted because you've seen it used up.

Your conflating here again. Used up is not the same as converted into. We can agree that magic is used up with out agreeing that it is converted. They are different processes, different words and need different levels and kinds of support.

Nightmask wrote:You might as well claim there's no proof that sunlight falling on a photocell isn't converted into electrical energy and that some mysterious thing happens in between that no sunlight is converted and that mysterious thing that shows up is doing it instead and carrying off the sunlight which remains inviolate.

Except that a photocell is 'comprehensible to science' so I can go to the laws of physics for information on what is happening.
Since a spell is not comprehensible to science, by definition then it does not use the laws of physics.
Apples to Apples, Oranges to Oranges.
This is a nice amusing story....except that as I point out its not actually what is going on here, nor is it relevant.
In your photocell example we already know how it working. But that conversion information is not something we get by watching it. To know how it works we have to go to an outside source of information (photovoltaic theory). Thus in our magic example we need to go to a similar outside source (in this case the text and rules on magic).

Nightmask wrote:Seriously, you wouldn't use these kinds of arguments anywhere else because they're so patently unsupportable why do you think they'd be any more useful here?

I use factually supported, textually cited logical argumentation in all my arguments. Since that is the only kind of logical argument that exists.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:Only if you choose to interpret magic as working that way. Which is to say you argue that magic = physics (which the books say is not true)

The books don't say that.

That is what the statement "incomprehensible to science means'
It is, well incomprehensible. Physics is comprehensible to science. Chemistry is comprehensible. Magic though....it is incomprehensible.
It doesn't get much clearer than that

That doesn't equate to 'magic violates physics', you may need it to mean that to support your end goal but that's not what it actually means.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:There is nothing one can point to and say that the magic isn't actually being used up and converted into the desired result

You mean other than the fact that there is not a single line of text anywhere that says that magic energy is transformed into the end product

Because there's no need for such a redundant statement, PPE (magical energy) is spent, i.e. used the only logical conclusion is the magical energy is used up in producing the end result.

That is not how logic works though.
Logic does not say "well there isn't anything that says what I want to support. But since it is one of many plausible outcome, then we will just say its the only one."
As I have said there are other options on how it works. If there are other options provided, then it is, by definition, not 'the only logical conclusion'
Also please note that 'used up in producing the end result' =/= 'is transformed into the output'

No, logic says when you have something and one outcome requires more assumptions than another then it's generally wrong, as the better explanation covers more of the facts given. You've not provided other equally logical conclusions because you've not provided conclusions that require no assumptions or gimmicking with things to support.

Also note that yes, without evidence otherwise, 'used up in producing end result' does mean 'transformed into the output'.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:certainly one can't expect to play with semantics and go 'well they used the word 'create' so it can only mean it's violating the law of conservation of matter and energy and adding new matter and energy to the universe' and expect it to be taken seriously.

When the book says that it creates something
AND when the book says that it defies science
Then the logic is that the book is right. It is up to YOU to prove that the book is wrong. (simply saying "I don't like what is written, so I will change it to say something else that means what I want it to" is not a logicial argument)

Except for the small problem that your claim that the book says magic creates energy from nothing and is not used up or converted into other energies is that the book doesn't even remotely say that. The FACT is the book doesn't say that magical energy isn't used up and doesn't get converted into the energy it brings about nor does it say that the spells that create things are violating the physical laws in that regard either. That's YOU saying that's what you THINK the books are saying because you've an end result of 'magic is special, so special it's a finite and immutable energy that can do things but never be used up'.

*Sigh*
1) the book does say that it creates things. As I have said the book says 'creates' The burden of proof is on you to prove that the words the book use (Creates) do not in fact mean create, but instead really mean transform.
2)the book does not say that magic is used up either. Thus a contention that PPE is used up is an affirmative contention, and requires proof to support it.
3) Simply saying "no" is not a logical rebuttal.

1) Again, no. The book does not say creates means 'violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy', that's you saying it means that. No one hearing you say you created something would arrive at such a conclusion, being magic doesn't mean it carries that as a inherent condition either.
2) Of course it does, it says 'you expend X amount of PPE to generate Y effect'. YOU are the one using the affirmative contention, saying 'well PPE isn't being used up' in direct contraction of what's actually written.
3) Good thing I haven't simply been saying 'no' then, I've been saying 'No, you don't get to change the meanings of things to suit your desired outcome and have to use the actual meanings of them.'

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:We can see magic go in and energy come out, what we don't see is PPE go in, the same PPE come out AND energy on top of that.

Half right. We see usable PPE expended to perform/power magic effects, and those magic effects have something happen. We do not know what happens to the PPE after word. It could be converted, or it could be dispersed back to the 'cosmic pool' or maybe it travels to the nearest ley line to gather up and be recycled.....
But the point is that there is not enough information to KNOW. (And there is not one WORD that says that it is converted into its effects)

You're resorting to word games and fallacies there. A spell is cast, PPE is used up, and without anything to support the implausible things you keep suggesting we must go with the simplest and most reasonable conclusion, since by observation we see PPE used up and spell effects happen then the PPE is converted into whatever energies or work the spell outputs. Otherwise you might as well argue magical undetectable pixies just happen to come along when a spell is cast and rush about doing all the work with the PPE as payment because it's as equally unprovable and unsupported by what we do so.

Claiming that "well this one option that I like is obviously correct because I like it better than any other" is logical is a fallacy.
The only thing that the books support is that PPE is used to produce magical effects.
It is YOUR personal contention that it works a specific way. The fact is that there are other ways that it could work. That means that you will need to support your contention.
And the most important thing here is to note that you are coflating two different claims

Except I haven't been making such a claim, YOU have. You're claiming, without any evidence to support it and contrary to the actual evidence that your claim that somehow there's an ambiguity that isn't actually there is somehow equally valid. It's not. Prove to me that unseen magical fairies actually steal photons of light and are really the cause of solar cells working. You can't because it's not possible. You can't prove that your 'magic isn't really used up in a spell' contention has any actual validity to it because there's nothing to support the magical fairies you're making up to try and create an ambiguity.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:But as we've noted before we're not going to agree on this, since you can't meet the minimum burden of proof necessary to support your claims and try to argue things that aren't in evidence as if they are. If you ever do though I will certainly consider it but nothing so far qualifies.

I don't think you understand what the word 'burden of proof' means.
I have shown
1) that the books say magic violates the laws of physics
2) that magic is explicatly said to create things
3) that magic is not said to be transformed into energy
4) with page citations
That is the burden of proof. I have defended my presumptive claim. To argue that you need to then provide your own proof. Proof is evidence not "well I don't like that" or "I don't agree" or "that's not true" You have to actually be able to point to a book and say "No here in book x on page y it says this and that counters your claim of z"
When you can do that we can have a logical debate. Until then its just you dismissing all evidence that is contrary to your stance as 'nuh uh'
(just to be clear the statement

Nightmask wrote:You say all that as if it means anything when it doesn't.

is not proof that a statement is wrong.....)

1) The books don't say magic violates the laws of conversation of matter and energy.

False. The books explicitly say that magic is incomprehensible to science. The books explicity say that magic can create things. Thus magic is not only not bound to the laws of physics but demonstrably violates it.

True. Magic being incomprehensible by current science doesn't equate to 'magic violate the physical laws of the universe including the law of Conservation of Energy and Matter'. The book saying magic can create things does not say it does so by violating said law either. Since neither A nor B are true neither can be used as proof of C. Even if magic demonstrably violated Physical Law X that doesn't mean it violates Physical Law Y, particularly unrelated physical laws. You can't point to anything that says magic explicitly violates the Conservation Law, all you can do is point to things and go "I take that to mean it does', you taking it to mean it does doesn't make it so.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:2) The books again don't say magic violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy when it creates things, you assemble a clock from a collection of parts you've created a clock but at no point did you violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy to create said clock.

Then it is up to you to prove that this is how it works. The books say it creates something. Some of them describe how that creation works. Some of them do not have any description other than 'create'

No, you have to prove that create means 'violates the law of conservation of matter and energy'. Since the law actually is a law you have to provide actual proof that something violates it, and your 'well I think that's what 'create' means' doesn't qualify.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:3) It doesn't have to be said, that's explicitly obvious when you cast a spell and energy is the result.

False. If you want the PPE to be transformedinto energy you will need some support for that. Otherwise all we know is that you cast a spell and you get energy. But we do not know HOW that is done. And it is false to claim otherwise.

True. If you want PPE to NOT be transformed into energy you need support for that. Logically when presented with 'Energy is Spent, work comes out' we conclude that the energy is transformed into the work that comes out including other energy. It is not logical to say 'well energy went in, work came out, but we don't know that anything happened with that energy it's likely it still exists unchanged and unused'.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:4)Which were meaningless since none of those citations actually say anything that actually supports what you claim.

As I have said repeatedly simply saying "no I don't like that" is not proof of a failure of my evidence
To counter my claims you will need to actually provide evidence that counters my evidence. That's how it works.

Except I'm not saying 'No I don't like that', I'm saying 'No, those don't support your claims and don't mean what you insist they mean'. See, first you actually have to provide evidence that doesn't require you creating your own special meaning for it to validate your claim, you are creating your own special meaning the moment you say things like 'it says magic is incomprehensible to science so that means to me that it must violate all physical laws in particular the law of Conservation of Matter and Energy'.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:And the burden you've failed to meet. You've provided no proof that magic is not used up and converted into other energies when a spell is cast

That's not how it works though.
1) the burden of proof is on you to prove that your affirmative claim (Magic is used up and transformed into other energies) I do not have to prove your claim false you have to prove your claim true. (you have yet to do this)
2) I have provided support for my contention that magic is NOT converted into other energies, but instead those energies are created on the spot. Simply ignoring my claim does not mean that my claim is not there.

1) That's not an affirmative claim, you've got the affirmative claim.
2) No, no you haven't. Saying 'well PPE was used but you can't prove it was transformed' isn't proof, nor is 'well I think magic violates the physical laws so I take it that create spells do by violating the physical laws rather than operating within them'.

So you're going to need a lot more than 'I think magic violates physical laws because that's what I want incomprehensible to magic to mean' to back up such an unsupported claim that 'magic doesn't get used up it's immutable and somehow violates physical laws to make new energy that never existed before and totally unrelated to the original magic spent'.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote: you've provided no proof that it violates the conservation of matter and energy

You mean besides other than quoting the book?

You've never quoted the book saying that. You've quoted the book saying 'magic is incomprehensible to science' which doesn't mean 'violates the law of conservation of matter and energy'. All of your arguments require things meaning what you want them to mean rather than what they actually mean.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:and you've provided no proof that someone like a techno-wizard can't make a device that turns non-magical energies into magical energies

Again two issues
1) I don't have to prove your theory is wrong, it is your job to prove it right (you have yet to provide contextual support for your claim. Which means that you have sill not met your burden of proof)
2) If my contention IS right, then that is proof that a TW cant made a device to turn non-magical energy into magical energy. Because if my contention is true then magical energy is never turned into non-magical energy in the first place. And thus if there is no transformation one way, then it can never be reversed.

1) No, you have to disprove it since we know energy can be converted into other energy so you have to prove magic doesn't follow the laws that allow for energy being converted from one form to another. I don't have to disprove your contention that magic is special you have to prove it is.
2) Except your contention isn't right. You haven't shown that contrary to what we've actually seen that magical energy doesn't really get converted into non-magical energy (because again 'you can't really prove the magic energy is used up and converted' is a fallacy, just like you can't really prove magical fairies are the real reason solar cells work). Spell cast, PPE in, Energy Out, PPE converted into other energy. That's basic logic. Spell cast, PPE in, Energy Out, PPE just hangs around unused and energy spontaneously appears not logical.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote: All you've provided is your spin on how you want to see things to support your conclusion.

Actually I have provided citations from the book. However all you have done is argue that my citations are wrong. You have never provided support for this, just spin and argumentation that I am wrong and that your view is right....

No, you haven't. You've pointed to things in the book and then said 'I take that to mean this...', which is your spin on things and not actually something one can reasonably derive from those citations.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:'Hey they said this spell creates something I can claim that's proof that it's violating the conservation of matter and energy because it's magic and I've already concluded magic does that' doesn't constitute proof, the spells don't say that explicitly or implicitly.

Magic is explicitly said to not follow the law of science (incomprehensible to science)
It says it creates. It is up to you to prove that those (factually cited) claims are wrong. Simply disliking them doesn't do it.

Again no, incomprehensible to science does not mean it fails to follow the laws of science only that it can't comprehend it currently. It certainly can't be expanded to mean 'magic violates all physical laws including the Conservation of Matter and Energy'.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote: You see magic spent, you see a result, you don't see proof the magic isn't being used up or converted because you've seen it used up.

Your conflating here again. Used up is not the same as converted into. We can agree that magic is used up with out agreeing that it is converted. They are different processes, different words and need different levels and kinds of support.

No, I'm not conflating. No we can't agree that magic being used up has a valid option of magic not being converted, they aren't different processes they're all part of the same process.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:You might as well claim there's no proof that sunlight falling on a photocell isn't converted into electrical energy and that some mysterious thing happens in between that no sunlight is converted and that mysterious thing that shows up is doing it instead and carrying off the sunlight which remains inviolate.

Except that a photocell is 'comprehensible to science' so I can go to the laws of physics for information on what is happening.
Since a spell is not comprehensible to science, by definition then it does not use the laws of physics.
Apples to Apples, Oranges to Oranges.
This is a nice amusing story....except that as I point out its not actually what is going on here, nor is it relevant.
In your photocell example we already know how it working. But that conversion information is not something we get by watching it. To know how it works we have to go to an outside source of information (photovoltaic theory). Thus in our magic example we need to go to a similar outside source (in this case the text and rules on magic).

No, you don't get to claim that 'so it follows that it doesn't use the laws of physics'. A calculator is incomprehensible to science' if you go back 200 years, one can't say that because they can't comprehend it that must violate the laws of physics. It doesn't matter that something is incomprehensible NOW, without definitive proof otherwise we have to consider it to still work within the existing known laws (or that the existing laws must be changed or scrapped in the face of the new information). So again 'incomprehensible to science' does not equal 'so it must violate known existing physical laws'.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Seriously, you wouldn't use these kinds of arguments anywhere else because they're so patently unsupportable why do you think they'd be any more useful here?

I use factually supported, textually cited logical argumentation in all my arguments. Since that is the only kind of logical argument that exists.

No, no you didn't. There is no factual support that the create spells violate the law of conservation of energy and matter and none of your arguments were logical. There is nothing logical about 'it's incomprehensible to science so that can and only means it must violate all physical laws'. Everything you've presented has come with the qualifier that 'so I take it to mean this even though that's not what it says' or fallacies like 'well you have to prove to me magical fairies aren't really responsible for what's going on and if you can't then my point is equally valid'. So even when you've presented facts you've tossed out conclusions that have no relation to the actual fact and can't be reasonably linked to it.

If all your arguments hinge on things like 'if something's incomprehensible then it must violate physical laws' and 'well you can't prove that magic is getting converted because I don't accept seeing PPE spent and energy coming out as proof' this is beyond pointless because you aren't using English or logic in any accepted definition to get to the things you insist as being valid when they aren't.

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:Only if you choose to interpret magic as working that way. Which is to say you argue that magic = physics (which the books say is not true)

The books don't say that.

That is what the statement "incomprehensible to science means'
It is, well incomprehensible. Physics is comprehensible to science. Chemistry is comprehensible. Magic though....it is incomprehensible.
It doesn't get much clearer than that

That doesn't equate to 'magic violates physics', you may need it to mean that to support your end goal but that's not what it actually means.

Actually it pretty much does mean that
If it follows the laws of science, then it would be, by definition 'comprehensible to science' The only way that it can NOT be comprehensible to science is if it doesn't follow the same laws.

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:There is nothing one can point to and say that the magic isn't actually being used up and converted into the desired result

You mean other than the fact that there is not a single line of text anywhere that says that magic energy is transformed into the end product

Because there's no need for such a redundant statement, PPE (magical energy) is spent, i.e. used the only logical conclusion is the magical energy is used up in producing the end result.

That is not how logic works though.
Logic does not say "well there isn't anything that says what I want to support. But since it is one of many plausible outcome, then we will just say its the only one."
As I have said there are other options on how it works. If there are other options provided, then it is, by definition, not 'the only logical conclusion'
Also please note that 'used up in producing the end result' =/= 'is transformed into the output'

No, logic says when you have something and one outcome requires more assumptions than another then it's generally wrong, as the better explanation covers more of the facts given. You've not provided other equally logical conclusions because you've not provided conclusions that require no assumptions or gimmicking with things to support.

Except that your not providing an outcome with less assumptions. Your providing an outcome with the same number of assumptions.
I have 2 assumptions magic =/= science (supported), and ppe =/= transformed into energy
you have 2: magic=/= science, ppe is transformed
hmmmm, looks like they have the same number of assumptions there....

Nightmask wrote:Also note that yes, without evidence otherwise, 'used up in producing end result' does mean 'transformed into the output'.

No it doesn't. Things can be used up in producing end result that are not transformed into the end result.
That this is possible (my coal example) proves that these are separate concepts. You can not prove one and then claim that its proof of the other. You need to prove each one separately

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:certainly one can't expect to play with semantics and go 'well they used the word 'create' so it can only mean it's violating the law of conservation of matter and energy and adding new matter and energy to the universe' and expect it to be taken seriously.

When the book says that it creates something
AND when the book says that it defies science
Then the logic is that the book is right. It is up to YOU to prove that the book is wrong. (simply saying "I don't like what is written, so I will change it to say something else that means what I want it to" is not a logicial argument)

Except for the small problem that your claim that the book says magic creates energy from nothing and is not used up or converted into other energies is that the book doesn't even remotely say that. The FACT is the book doesn't say that magical energy isn't used up and doesn't get converted into the energy it brings about nor does it say that the spells that create things are violating the physical laws in that regard either. That's YOU saying that's what you THINK the books are saying because you've an end result of 'magic is special, so special it's a finite and immutable energy that can do things but never be used up'.

*Sigh*
1) the book does say that it creates things. As I have said the book says 'creates' The burden of proof is on you to prove that the words the book use (Creates) do not in fact mean create, but instead really mean transform.
2)the book does not say that magic is used up either. Thus a contention that PPE is used up is an affirmative contention, and requires proof to support it.
3) Simply saying "no" is not a logical rebuttal.

1) Again, no. The book does not say creates means 'violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy', that's you saying it means that. No one hearing you say you created something would arrive at such a conclusion, being magic doesn't mean it carries that as a inherent condition either.
2) Of course it does, it says 'you expend X amount of PPE to generate Y effect'. YOU are the one using the affirmative contention, saying 'well PPE isn't being used up' in direct contraction of what's actually written.
3) Good thing I haven't simply been saying 'no' then, I've been saying 'No, you don't get to change the meanings of things to suit your desired outcome and have to use the actual meanings of them.'

1a) Then cite proof, in the books, that creation does not mean creation.
1b) yes, yes it does say that it violates the laws of physics. If it violates the laws of physics, then the presumption is not that it follows them...
2) The PPE is expended, that is not in doubt. What is in doubt is what that means, specifically
3) Except that's not what your doing. Your saying "No I don't like that the book actually says magic is not science. So I am ignoring that. Then because I ignore that I can go on and say that magic is science. Oh and while I am on it I can say that the book used the wrong word for something (create) and it really meant to say 'transforms'" YOUR the one that is changing the meaning of words (create means transform. Used up means transform....)

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:We can see magic go in and energy come out, what we don't see is PPE go in, the same PPE come out AND energy on top of that.

Half right. We see usable PPE expended to perform/power magic effects, and those magic effects have something happen. We do not know what happens to the PPE after word. It could be converted, or it could be dispersed back to the 'cosmic pool' or maybe it travels to the nearest ley line to gather up and be recycled.....
But the point is that there is not enough information to KNOW. (And there is not one WORD that says that it is converted into its effects)

You're resorting to word games and fallacies there. A spell is cast, PPE is used up, and without anything to support the implausible things you keep suggesting we must go with the simplest and most reasonable conclusion, since by observation we see PPE used up and spell effects happen then the PPE is converted into whatever energies or work the spell outputs. Otherwise you might as well argue magical undetectable pixies just happen to come along when a spell is cast and rush about doing all the work with the PPE as payment because it's as equally unprovable and unsupported by what we do so.

Claiming that "well this one option that I like is obviously correct because I like it better than any other" is logical is a fallacy.
The only thing that the books support is that PPE is used to produce magical effects.
It is YOUR personal contention that it works a specific way. The fact is that there are other ways that it could work. That means that you will need to support your contention.
And the most important thing here is to note that you are coflating two different claims

Except I haven't been making such a claim, YOU have. You're claiming, without any evidence to support it and contrary to the actual evidence that your claim that somehow there's an ambiguity that isn't actually there is somehow equally valid. It's not. Prove to me that unseen magical fairies actually steal photons of light and are really the cause of solar cells working. You can't because it's not possible. You can't prove that your 'magic isn't really used up in a spell' contention has any actual validity to it because there's nothing to support the magical fairies you're making up to try and create an ambiguity.

Your attempting to use a red herring (photocells, which are not the same thing, they are totally different) to prove a different concept
The case at hand is not a question of how photocells work (we know that through science) but how spells work (for that we need to look at magic) your trying to apply the rules of science to a scientific process and then generalize it as proof that magic rules in magical processes are identical.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:But as we've noted before we're not going to agree on this, since you can't meet the minimum burden of proof necessary to support your claims and try to argue things that aren't in evidence as if they are. If you ever do though I will certainly consider it but nothing so far qualifies.

I don't think you understand what the word 'burden of proof' means.
I have shown
1) that the books say magic violates the laws of physics
2) that magic is explicatly said to create things
3) that magic is not said to be transformed into energy
4) with page citations
That is the burden of proof. I have defended my presumptive claim. To argue that you need to then provide your own proof. Proof is evidence not "well I don't like that" or "I don't agree" or "that's not true" You have to actually be able to point to a book and say "No here in book x on page y it says this and that counters your claim of z"
When you can do that we can have a logical debate. Until then its just you dismissing all evidence that is contrary to your stance as 'nuh uh'
(just to be clear the statement

Nightmask wrote:You say all that as if it means anything when it doesn't.

is not proof that a statement is wrong.....)

Nightmask wrote:[quote=eliakon"]

Nightmask wrote:1) The books don't say magic violates the laws of conversation of matter and energy.

False. The books explicitly say that magic is incomprehensible to science. The books explicity say that magic can create things. Thus magic is not only not bound to the laws of physics but demonstrably violates it.

True. Magic being incomprehensible by current science doesn't equate to 'magic violate the physical laws of the universe including the law of Conservation of Energy and Matter'. The book saying magic can create things does not say it does so by violating said law either. Since neither A nor B are true neither can be used as proof of C. Even if magic demonstrably violated Physical Law X that doesn't mean it violates Physical Law Y, particularly unrelated physical laws. You can't point to anything that says magic explicitly violates the Conservation Law, all you can do is point to things and go "I take that to mean it does', you taking it to mean it does doesn't make it so.[/quote]
Um yes it does. It quite literally does.
If it followed the laws of physics, if it followed the same rules. Then it would be comprehensible by science (note it says by science, not by current science, but by science period dot end of story)

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:2) The books again don't say magic violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy when it creates things, you assemble a clock from a collection of parts you've created a clock but at no point did you violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy to create said clock.

Then it is up to you to prove that this is how it works. The books say it creates something. Some of them describe how that creation works. Some of them do not have any description other than 'create'

No, you have to prove that create means 'violates the law of conservation of matter and energy'. Since the law actually is a law you have to provide actual proof that something violates it, and your 'well I think that's what 'create' means' doesn't qualify.

My proof is simple
If magic follows the laws of science Then magic would be comprehensible to science
Magic is Not comprehensible to science
Therefore magic does not follow the laws of physics

Corallary
If magic does not follow the laws of physics then Magic is not required to follow the law of conservation of energy
Magic does not follow the laws of physics
Therefore: magic is not required to follow the law of conservation of energy

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:3) It doesn't have to be said, that's explicitly obvious when you cast a spell and energy is the result.

False. If you want the PPE to be transformedinto energy you will need some support for that. Otherwise all we know is that you cast a spell and you get energy. But we do not know HOW that is done. And it is false to claim otherwise.

True. If you want PPE to NOT be transformed into energy you need support for that. Logically when presented with 'Energy is Spent, work comes out' we conclude that the energy is transformed into the work that comes out including other energy. It is not logical to say 'well energy went in, work came out, but we don't know that anything happened with that energy it's likely it still exists unchanged and unused'.

You are changing the terms again
PPE used up to provide an effect is not proof that the PPE is turned directly into that effect
This goes back to my analogy of coal and electricity. Coal is not directly turned into electricity. If it is therefore possible for some things to power other things with out them being directly turned into the end product then it is not mandatory that such transformation be a necessary end state of any such event.
It then requires proof positive from the claimant that such is the case.

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:4)Which were meaningless since none of those citations actually say anything that actually supports what you claim.

As I have said repeatedly simply saying "no I don't like that" is not proof of a failure of my evidence
To counter my claims you will need to actually provide evidence that counters my evidence. That's how it works.

Except I'm not saying 'No I don't like that', I'm saying 'No, those don't support your claims and don't mean what you insist they mean'. See, first you actually have to provide evidence that doesn't require you creating your own special meaning for it to validate your claim, you are creating your own special meaning the moment you say things like 'it says magic is incomprehensible to science so that means to me that it must violate all physical laws in particular the law of Conservation of Matter and Energy'.

I am not making any special meanings here I am using the basic definitions of the words
The only way that magic could not be comprehensible to science is if it does not follow the same rules. Because if it did use the same rules it would have to be comprehensible.
One of those rules in the law of conservation. Thus there is no proof that magic follows the law of conservation because we can prove that magic does not have to follow that law. This means that claims that magic DOES follow this law require affirmative proof.

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:And the burden you've failed to meet. You've provided no proof that magic is not used up and converted into other energies when a spell is cast

That's not how it works though.
1) the burden of proof is on you to prove that your affirmative claim (Magic is used up and transformed into other energies) I do not have to prove your claim false you have to prove your claim true. (you have yet to do this)
2) I have provided support for my contention that magic is NOT converted into other energies, but instead those energies are created on the spot. Simply ignoring my claim does not mean that my claim is not there.

1) That's not an affirmative claim, you've got the affirmative claim.

No, your saying that PPE is transformed into energy. That is a specific claim. Back it up. Otherwise there is no proof that magic has to work by transforming PPE into energy.

Nightmask wrote:2) No, no you haven't. Saying 'well PPE was used but you can't prove it was transformed' isn't proof, nor is 'well I think magic violates the physical laws so I take it that create spells do by violating the physical laws rather than operating within them'.

I have provided some support. You need to attack that support.
To wit my support is that magic does not follow physical laws, and that magic is said to create things. my negative proof is that magic is never said to ever 'turn ppe' into anything else. That means that claims that this is wrong have to attack my evidence, not just simply say they are wrong.

Nightmask wrote:So you're going to need a lot more than 'I think magic violates physical laws because that's what I want incomprehensible to magic to mean' to back up such an unsupported claim that 'magic doesn't get used up it's immutable and somehow violates physical laws to make new energy that never existed before and totally unrelated to the original magic spent'.

I have repeatedly provided my proof of what incomprehensible means. You are free to attack that definition, or the proof behind it. But I have provided one. Its a reasoned, supported claim not just some 'I want it to mean this'

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote: you've provided no proof that it violates the conservation of matter and energy

You mean besides other than quoting the book?

You've never quoted the book saying that. You've quoted the book saying 'magic is incomprehensible to science' which doesn't mean 'violates the law of conservation of matter and energy'. All of your arguments require things meaning what you want them to mean rather than what they actually mean.

How many times would you like me to repeat the logical chain here? If you can provide a counter definition that negates my provided definition and still mandates that magic follows the laws of physics, and is supported by the text I am all ears

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:and you've provided no proof that someone like a techno-wizard can't make a device that turns non-magical energies into magical energies

Again two issues
1) I don't have to prove your theory is wrong, it is your job to prove it right (you have yet to provide contextual support for your claim. Which means that you have sill not met your burden of proof)
2) If my contention IS right, then that is proof that a TW cant made a device to turn non-magical energy into magical energy. Because if my contention is true then magical energy is never turned into non-magical energy in the first place. And thus if there is no transformation one way, then it can never be reversed.

1) No, you have to disprove it since we know energy can be converted into other energy so you have to prove magic doesn't follow the laws that allow for energy being converted from one form to another. I don't have to disprove your contention that magic is special you have to prove it is.

Except that I have proved that magic doesn't follow the laws of physics
And there is nothing, anywhere that says that magic is ever converted into any other form of energy
Once I provide proof of something you have to disprove that proof. And you have not done so

Nightmask wrote:2) Except your contention isn't right. You haven't shown that contrary to what we've actually seen that magical energy doesn't really get converted into non-magical energy (because again 'you can't really prove the magic energy is used up and converted' is a fallacy, just like you can't really prove magical fairies are the real reason solar cells work). Spell cast, PPE in, Energy Out, PPE converted into other energy. That's basic logic. Spell cast, PPE in, Energy Out, PPE just hangs around unused and energy spontaneously appears not logical.

Again your pulling out a red herring and trying to apply something that doesn't apply and make it fit.
And no you do have to show that PPE is transformed to claim that PPE is transformed. Because I have shown in my claim that it is not transformed. That's how logic works, once I provide a proof of something, then you have to attack that proof you cant just say "no it works differently because I say it does"

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote: All you've provided is your spin on how you want to see things to support your conclusion.

Actually I have provided citations from the book. However all you have done is argue that my citations are wrong. You have never provided support for this, just spin and argumentation that I am wrong and that your view is right....

No, you haven't. You've pointed to things in the book and then said 'I take that to mean this...', which is your spin on things and not actually something one can reasonably derive from those citations.

No I have pointed to the books, and provided a step by step logical explanation of how those mean what they mean. To which the only counter has been "no that's not what they mean"

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:'Hey they said this spell creates something I can claim that's proof that it's violating the conservation of matter and energy because it's magic and I've already concluded magic does that' doesn't constitute proof, the spells don't say that explicitly or implicitly.

Magic is explicitly said to not follow the law of science (incomprehensible to science)
It says it creates. It is up to you to prove that those (factually cited) claims are wrong. Simply disliking them doesn't do it.

Again no, incomprehensible to science does not mean it fails to follow the laws of science only that it can't comprehend it currently. It certainly can't be expanded to mean 'magic violates all physical laws including the Conservation of Matter and Energy'.

The book doesn't say "currently" it says point blank that magic is incomprehensible to science.

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote: You see magic spent, you see a result, you don't see proof the magic isn't being used up or converted because you've seen it used up.

Your conflating here again. Used up is not the same as converted into. We can agree that magic is used up with out agreeing that it is converted. They are different processes, different words and need different levels and kinds of support.

No, I'm not conflating. No we can't agree that magic being used up has a valid option of magic not being converted, they aren't different processes they're all part of the same process.

Then prove it. Provide some proof that magic is transformed into regular energy. Because your making an affirmative claim so you need to provide proof of it. Transformation is not the status quo, its an actual claim. Because your claiming that a specific mechanic is at play.

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:You might as well claim there's no proof that sunlight falling on a photocell isn't converted into electrical energy and that some mysterious thing happens in between that no sunlight is converted and that mysterious thing that shows up is doing it instead and carrying off the sunlight which remains inviolate.

Except that a photocell is 'comprehensible to science' so I can go to the laws of physics for information on what is happening.
Since a spell is not comprehensible to science, by definition then it does not use the laws of physics.
Apples to Apples, Oranges to Oranges.
This is a nice amusing story....except that as I point out its not actually what is going on here, nor is it relevant.
In your photocell example we already know how it working. But that conversion information is not something we get by watching it. To know how it works we have to go to an outside source of information (photovoltaic theory). Thus in our magic example we need to go to a similar outside source (in this case the text and rules on magic).

No, you don't get to claim that 'so it follows that it doesn't use the laws of physics'. A calculator is incomprehensible to science' if you go back 200 years, one can't say that because they can't comprehend it that must violate the laws of physics. It doesn't matter that something is incomprehensible NOW, without definitive proof otherwise we have to consider it to still work within the existing known laws (or that the existing laws must be changed or scrapped in the face of the new information). So again 'incomprehensible to science' does not equal 'so it must violate known existing physical laws'.

No a calculator or photocell is comprehensible to science. It may not be understood by specific scientests but it is understood by science.
Magic is not incomprehensible to current science. Its not incomprehensible to certain scientists. Its incomprehensible to science. That means ALL science, ALL the time, in ALL eras fails to comprehend it.

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Seriously, you wouldn't use these kinds of arguments anywhere else because they're so patently unsupportable why do you think they'd be any more useful here?

I use factually supported, textually cited logical argumentation in all my arguments. Since that is the only kind of logical argument that exists.

No, no you didn't. There is no factual support that the create spells violate the law of conservation of energy and matter and none of your arguments were logical. There is nothing logical about 'it's incomprehensible to science so that can and only means it must violate all physical laws'. Everything you've presented has come with the qualifier that 'so I take it to mean this even though that's not what it says' or fallacies like 'well you have to prove to me magical fairies aren't really responsible for what's going on and if you can't then my point is equally valid'. So even when you've presented facts you've tossed out conclusions that have no relation to the actual fact and can't be reasonably linked to it.

If all your arguments hinge on things like 'if something's incomprehensible then it must violate physical laws' and 'well you can't prove that magic is getting converted because I don't accept seeing PPE spent and energy coming out as proof' this is beyond pointless because you aren't using English or logic in any accepted definition to get to the things you insist as being valid when they aren't.

I do not think you are understanding what the words being used here mean then
Incomprehnsible: this means that it can not be understood, that it uses methods or technices that the viewer is unable to understand or comprehend.
Science: this is a catch all for all science, science lore, scientists, and relations to them
Thus
Magic is incomprehensible to Science means that science is unable to understand or comprehend how magic works.
The scientific method implies that all things that follow natural law are understandable by aplications of that natural law
Therefore if something is NOT understandable by applying science and natural law to it, then it must not be science.
One of the natural laws that is used by science to understand how things work (comprehend things) is the law of the conservation of energy.
If magic is not understandable by applying natural law to it, then it has to be in violation of one or more natural laws (otherwise it could be understood by the application of those laws)
Therefore magic is not bound by natural law

Incomprehnsible: this means that it can not be understood, that it uses methods or technices that the viewer is unable to understand or comprehend.
Science: this is a catch all for all science, science lore, scientists, and relations to them
Thus
Magic is incomprehensible to Science means that science is unable to understand or comprehend how magic works.
The scientific method implies that all things that follow natural law are understandable by aplications of that natural law
Therefore if something is NOT understandable by applying science and natural law to it, then it must not be science.
One of the natural laws that is used by science to understand how things work (comprehend things) is the law of the conservation of energy.
If magic is not understandable by applying natural law to it, then it has to be in violation of one or more natural laws (otherwise it could be understood by the application of those laws)
Therefore magic is not bound by natural law

Or in logical format
My proof is simple
If magic follows the laws of science Then magic would be comprehensible to science
Magic is Not comprehensible to science
Therefore magic does not follow the laws of physics

Corollary
The law of Conservation of Energy is a law of physics
If magic does not follow the laws of physics then Magic is not required to follow the law of conservation of energy
Magic does not follow the laws of physics
Therefore: magic is not required to follow the law of conservation of energy

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:That is what the statement "incomprehensible to science means'
It is, well incomprehensible. Physics is comprehensible to science. Chemistry is comprehensible. Magic though....it is incomprehensible.
It doesn't get much clearer than that

That doesn't equate to 'magic violates physics', you may need it to mean that to support your end goal but that's not what it actually means.

Actually it pretty much does mean that
If it follows the laws of science, then it would be, by definition 'comprehensible to science' The only way that it can NOT be comprehensible to science is if it doesn't follow the same laws.

No actually it pretty much doesn't. As I already pointed out a calculator would be incomprehensible to science 200 years ago that doesn't mean it's in violation of physical laws. ALL that statement means is that science, as it currently is, doesn't understand it, NOT that it is in fact impossible to understand or that it must violate the known physical laws.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Because there's no need for such a redundant statement, PPE (magical energy) is spent, i.e. used the only logical conclusion is the magical energy is used up in producing the end result.

That is not how logic works though.
Logic does not say "well there isn't anything that says what I want to support. But since it is one of many plausible outcome, then we will just say its the only one."
As I have said there are other options on how it works. If there are other options provided, then it is, by definition, not 'the only logical conclusion'
Also please note that 'used up in producing the end result' =/= 'is transformed into the output'

No, logic says when you have something and one outcome requires more assumptions than another then it's generally wrong, as the better explanation covers more of the facts given. You've not provided other equally logical conclusions because you've not provided conclusions that require no assumptions or gimmicking with things to support.

Except that your not providing an outcome with less assumptions. Your providing an outcome with the same number of assumptions.
I have 2 assumptions magic =/= science (supported), and ppe =/= transformed into energy
you have 2: magic=/= science, ppe is transformed
hmmmm, looks like they have the same number of assumptions there....

Wrong, I DON'T have the assumption magic doesn't equal science, that's yours. Nor do I have an assumption that PPE is transformed I have the basic fact that it is.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Also note that yes, without evidence otherwise, 'used up in producing end result' does mean 'transformed into the output'.

No it doesn't. Things can be used up in producing end result that are not transformed into the end result.
That this is possible (my coal example) proves that these are separate concepts. You can not prove one and then claim that its proof of the other. You need to prove each one separately

No, I don't. You need to prove your claim that contrary to logic energy can be used and not used (because again you can't compare PPE to coal, they aren't relateable in this context). I can point to the book and go 'PPE is spent here on this spell and it gives this amount of work out so PPE is being converted into work', whereas you can't point and go 'PPE is spent on this spell it gives this amount of work but no PPE was used it just sat off to the side completely uninvolved'.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:*Sigh*
1) the book does say that it creates things. As I have said the book says 'creates' The burden of proof is on you to prove that the words the book use (Creates) do not in fact mean create, but instead really mean transform.
2)the book does not say that magic is used up either. Thus a contention that PPE is used up is an affirmative contention, and requires proof to support it.
3) Simply saying "no" is not a logical rebuttal.

1) Again, no. The book does not say creates means 'violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy', that's you saying it means that. No one hearing you say you created something would arrive at such a conclusion, being magic doesn't mean it carries that as a inherent condition either.
2) Of course it does, it says 'you expend X amount of PPE to generate Y effect'. YOU are the one using the affirmative contention, saying 'well PPE isn't being used up' in direct contraction of what's actually written.
3) Good thing I haven't simply been saying 'no' then, I've been saying 'No, you don't get to change the meanings of things to suit your desired outcome and have to use the actual meanings of them.'

1a) Then cite proof, in the books, that creation does not mean creation.
1b) yes, yes it does say that it violates the laws of physics. If it violates the laws of physics, then the presumption is not that it follows them...
2) The PPE is expended, that is not in doubt. What is in doubt is what that means, specifically
3) Except that's not what your doing. Your saying "No I don't like that the book actually says magic is not science. So I am ignoring that. Then because I ignore that I can go on and say that magic is science. Oh and while I am on it I can say that the book used the wrong word for something (create) and it really meant to say 'transforms'" YOUR the one that is changing the meaning of words (create means transform. Used up means transform....)

The book doesn't say 'magic doesn't equal science', you say that. 'incomprehensible to science' doesn't mean it's not science, just a science that conventional scientists don't yet understand (and clearly Techno-Wizards understand them enough to meld them together). And seriously again, stop with the fallacious demands there. YOU say creation must mean and can only mean that spells that create must violate physical laws including the biggie of the inability to truly create or destroy matter, it's up to you to actually PROVE that not demand someone else try to disprove your negative. Since you've failed to so far to actually prove your point (since it requires one accept how you define things rather than how they're actually defined) I don't see you successfully doing so.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Except I haven't been making such a claim, YOU have. You're claiming, without any evidence to support it and contrary to the actual evidence that your claim that somehow there's an ambiguity that isn't actually there is somehow equally valid. It's not. Prove to me that unseen magical fairies actually steal photons of light and are really the cause of solar cells working. You can't because it's not possible. You can't prove that your 'magic isn't really used up in a spell' contention has any actual validity to it because there's nothing to support the magical fairies you're making up to try and create an ambiguity.

Your attempting to use a red herring (photocells, which are not the same thing, they are totally different) to prove a different concept
The case at hand is not a question of how photocells work (we know that through science) but how spells work (for that we need to look at magic) your trying to apply the rules of science to a scientific process and then generalize it as proof that magic rules in magical processes are identical.

It's not a red herring it's dead on point. You keep making a magical fairy defense; you can no more prove that magical energy isn't used and converted into the work of a spell by violating the laws of conservation of matter and energy than you can prove that magical fairies are really taking the photons of light and causing the electrons to move in the photocell to generate power.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:True. Magic being incomprehensible by current science doesn't equate to 'magic violate the physical laws of the universe including the law of Conservation of Energy and Matter'. The book saying magic can create things does not say it does so by violating said law either. Since neither A nor B are true neither can be used as proof of C. Even if magic demonstrably violated Physical Law X that doesn't mean it violates Physical Law Y, particularly unrelated physical laws. You can't point to anything that says magic explicitly violates the Conservation Law, all you can do is point to things and go "I take that to mean it does', you taking it to mean it does doesn't make it so.

Um yes it does. It quite literally does.
If it followed the laws of physics, if it followed the same rules. Then it would be comprehensible by science (note it says by science, not by current science, but by science period dot end of story)

No, it quite literally doesn't, and no just because they didn't say 'current science' you don't get to insist that they actually meant it was beyond any hope of science to ever understand.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:2) The books again don't say magic violates the laws of conservation of matter and energy when it creates things, you assemble a clock from a collection of parts you've created a clock but at no point did you violate the laws of conservation of matter and energy to create said clock.

Then it is up to you to prove that this is how it works. The books say it creates something. Some of them describe how that creation works. Some of them do not have any description other than 'create'

No, you have to prove that create means 'violates the law of conservation of matter and energy'. Since the law actually is a law you have to provide actual proof that something violates it, and your 'well I think that's what 'create' means' doesn't qualify.

My proof is simple
If magic follows the laws of science Then magic would be comprehensible to science
Magic is Not comprehensible to science
Therefore magic does not follow the laws of physics

Corallary
If magic does not follow the laws of physics then Magic is not required to follow the law of conservation of energy
Magic does not follow the laws of physics
Therefore: magic is not required to follow the law of conservation of energy

Your proof fails though because it again it's based off you qualifying it your way that 'magic cannot ever be understood by science', not a valid point that's an opinion of yours. Heck, even if science can't actually understand it because the principles are too alien that still doesn't mean it violates the laws of physics. Finally even if your corollary were valid and magic wasn't required to follow the laws of conservation of energy doesn't mean it doesn't. For which again even if it violated some laws doesn't mean it must violate all laws, fallacious reasoning there.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:True. If you want PPE to NOT be transformed into energy you need support for that. Logically when presented with 'Energy is Spent, work comes out' we conclude that the energy is transformed into the work that comes out including other energy. It is not logical to say 'well energy went in, work came out, but we don't know that anything happened with that energy it's likely it still exists unchanged and unused'.

You are changing the terms again
PPE used up to provide an effect is not proof that the PPE is turned directly into that effect
This goes back to my analogy of coal and electricity. Coal is not directly turned into electricity. If it is therefore possible for some things to power other things with out them being directly turned into the end product then it is not mandatory that such transformation be a necessary end state of any such event.
It then requires proof positive from the claimant that such is the case.

Why do you keep coming back to that complete fail of a comparison? Energy and matter are different, coal is matter and of course as it's burned it breaks down into byproducts to generate heat that powers whatever is converting that heat into electricity. You can't point to any case of energy going into a process and not being converted into the work (and waste heat) of the process, and PPE is obviously energy so it falls to you to positively prove your claim that PPE actually behaves like matter rather than energy, something you fall completely and utterly short at doing.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Except I'm not saying 'No I don't like that', I'm saying 'No, those don't support your claims and don't mean what you insist they mean'. See, first you actually have to provide evidence that doesn't require you creating your own special meaning for it to validate your claim, you are creating your own special meaning the moment you say things like 'it says magic is incomprehensible to science so that means to me that it must violate all physical laws in particular the law of Conservation of Matter and Energy'.

I am not making any special meanings here I am using the basic definitions of the words
The only way that magic could not be comprehensible to science is if it does not follow the same rules. Because if it did use the same rules it would have to be comprehensible.
One of those rules in the law of conservation. Thus there is no proof that magic follows the law of conservation because we can prove that magic does not have to follow that law. This means that claims that magic DOES follow this law require affirmative proof.

No, you really aren't using the basic definitions of the words and you are arguing a special meaning that's not inherent in the words and text, because if your position were so obvious we wouldn't even be arguing about it because I'd agree with you but I don't agree with you because 'incomprehensible to science' doesn't mean 'can't ever be known to science and can't follow any physical laws' as you claim, that's a ridiculous broad-sweeping and unproven and unsupportable position.

You can't prove magic doesn't follow the law of conservation of energy, which as an existing law YOU have to prove it doesn't. Going 'well it doesn't have to' is not proof that it doesn't even if that were valid.

eliakon wrote:No, your saying that PPE is transformed into energy. That is a specific claim. Back it up. Otherwise there is no proof that magic has to work by transforming PPE into energy.

Seriously, stop trying to avoid proving your point by trying to push things off onto me, especially when you're so obviously wrong. Again, you cast a spell, PPE goes in, is transferred into whatever work the spell requires including energy. That's basic logic, that's an observable thing. You have to prove your claim, that in spite of no evidence to support it that PPE doesn't actually get transformed when it's used and remains immutable. YOU are making the specific claim that contrary to what we see it doesn't actually work how we see it does, so that when someone casts that 500 PPE spell the PPE was never actually used and never did anything and the spell ran off of something else entirely. Until you do just drop it or admit you can't prove your claim that PPE is never used up or transformed in spell-casting AS WE SEE IT ACTUALLY HAPPEN.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:2) No, no you haven't. Saying 'well PPE was used but you can't prove it was transformed' isn't proof, nor is 'well I think magic violates the physical laws so I take it that create spells do by violating the physical laws rather than operating within them'.

I have provided some support. You need to attack that support.
To wit my support is that magic does not follow physical laws, and that magic is said to create things. my negative proof is that magic is never said to ever 'turn ppe' into anything else. That means that claims that this is wrong have to attack my evidence, not just simply say they are wrong.

Given you have no evidence there's nothing to attack because there's nothing there. Your claim is that in spite of the evidence PPE is used to power spells that PPE actually isn't used by spells at all, that it does no work and isn't being converted into energy as needed by a spell. Something so mindboggling contrary to what we see as to be unfathomable that anyone would try and make such a claim.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:So you're going to need a lot more than 'I think magic violates physical laws because that's what I want incomprehensible to magic to mean' to back up such an unsupported claim that 'magic doesn't get used up it's immutable and somehow violates physical laws to make new energy that never existed before and totally unrelated to the original magic spent'.

I have repeatedly provided my proof of what incomprehensible means. You are free to attack that definition, or the proof behind it. But I have provided one. Its a reasoned, supported claim not just some 'I want it to mean this'

You've provided what you want it to mean, not what it actually means, and it's certainly not a reasoned or supported claim. The moment you say 'I take incomprehensible to mean it violates all physical laws' you're giving what YOU feel it means.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:You've never quoted the book saying that. You've quoted the book saying 'magic is incomprehensible to science' which doesn't mean 'violates the law of conservation of matter and energy'. All of your arguments require things meaning what you want them to mean rather than what they actually mean.

How many times would you like me to repeat the logical chain here? If you can provide a counter definition that negates my provided definition and still mandates that magic follows the laws of physics, and is supported by the text I am all ears.

I've yet to see you provide a logical chain.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:1) No, you have to disprove it since we know energy can be converted into other energy so you have to prove magic doesn't follow the laws that allow for energy being converted from one form to another. I don't have to disprove your contention that magic is special you have to prove it is.

Except that I have proved that magic doesn't follow the laws of physics
And there is nothing, anywhere that says that magic is ever converted into any other form of energy
Once I provide proof of something you have to disprove that proof. And you have not done so

As soon as you actually provide proof of something I will. 'I don't think magic follows any of the laws of physics so PPE is not actually used by spells and can't be converted into anything else' is a claim you make, it's not supported by anything.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:2) Except your contention isn't right. You haven't shown that contrary to what we've actually seen that magical energy doesn't really get converted into non-magical energy (because again 'you can't really prove the magic energy is used up and converted' is a fallacy, just like you can't really prove magical fairies are the real reason solar cells work). Spell cast, PPE in, Energy Out, PPE converted into other energy. That's basic logic. Spell cast, PPE in, Energy Out, PPE just hangs around unused and energy spontaneously appears not logical.

Again your pulling out a red herring and trying to apply something that doesn't apply and make it fit.
And no you do have to show that PPE is transformed to claim that PPE is transformed. Because I have shown in my claim that it is not transformed. That's how logic works, once I provide a proof of something, then you have to attack that proof you cant just say "no it works differently because I say it does"

No red herrings in anything I've said, and I'm beyond tired of you making such a nonsense demand that I have to prove PPE isn't transformed when the burden is on you to prove it isn't. A quite unprovable claim since we actually see that PPE powers spells and energy/work comes out of them, and no amount of 'well I think magic violates physical laws so PPE isn't used up powering spells' is going to make it so. You need clear and convincing proof that PPE ISN'T converted, which you don't have. You have 'well sure we see PPE used in a spell and energy come out but I refuse to think that the PPE is being converted it must still be there and something else did all the work spontaneously'. That is epic fail.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:No, you haven't. You've pointed to things in the book and then said 'I take that to mean this...', which is your spin on things and not actually something one can reasonably derive from those citations.

No I have pointed to the books, and provided a step by step logical explanation of how those mean what they mean. To which the only counter has been "no that's not what they mean"

And I've pointed out repeatedly where all those steps have failed, including your failure to recognize that your opinion isn't a fact and it very much is your opinion that 'incomprehensible to science' means 'can never be known and must mean magic violates all physical laws and never be bound by any of them'.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Again no, incomprehensible to science does not mean it fails to follow the laws of science only that it can't comprehend it currently. It certainly can't be expanded to mean 'magic violates all physical laws including the Conservation of Matter and Energy'.

The book doesn't say "currently" it says point blank that magic is incomprehensible to science.

There's a lot of things the book doesn't say or include but are understood, and with or without the 'currently' that doesn't mean magic does or must violate all physical laws in particular the one you feel it just has to violate since you require it to support your baseless claim that PPE cannot be created or destroyed or otherwise converted into other energies. Which is pretty ironic, you're insisting that there's a physical law that magic cannot be converted to anything else nor anything else converted into it while simultaneously insisting Magic follows and goes against all physical laws no matter how great or small.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:No, I'm not conflating. No we can't agree that magic being used up has a valid option of magic not being converted, they aren't different processes they're all part of the same process.

Then prove it. Provide some proof that magic is transformed into regular energy. Because your making an affirmative claim so you need to provide proof of it. Transformation is not the status quo, its an actual claim. Because your claiming that a specific mechanic is at play.

Well now given you insist that no such proof can exist because magical fairies that no one can see actually does all the work and magic doesn't actually do anything all the actual book evidence such as someone casting a lightning bolt spell or for that matter using a Sub-Particle Acceleration spell to recharge an e-clip you dismiss by declaring 'no it's not the magical fairies actually did it'. So even though Sub-Particle Acceleration explicitly is shown converting PPE energy into energy to recharge an E-clip your position keeps being 'no the spell never actually did that the PPE is still there but no one can detect it and it really created energy from nothing instead'. So in spite of conversion being the actual status quo you will continue to insist that conversion never happened. Which creates an impossible impasse to overcome as you will keep insisting that the evidence isn't and that some fanciful non-existent thing is really responsible.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:No, you don't get to claim that 'so it follows that it doesn't use the laws of physics'. A calculator is incomprehensible to science' if you go back 200 years, one can't say that because they can't comprehend it that must violate the laws of physics. It doesn't matter that something is incomprehensible NOW, without definitive proof otherwise we have to consider it to still work within the existing known laws (or that the existing laws must be changed or scrapped in the face of the new information). So again 'incomprehensible to science' does not equal 'so it must violate known existing physical laws'.

No a calculator or photocell is comprehensible to science. It may not be understood by specific scientests but it is understood by science.
Magic is not incomprehensible to current science. Its not incomprehensible to certain scientists. Its incomprehensible to science. That means ALL science, ALL the time, in ALL eras fails to comprehend it.

You keep harping about that 'comprehensible/incomprehensible to science', and no what that phrase means incomprehensible to CURRENT science not all science, all the time, throughout the omniverse.

eliakon wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

eliakon wrote:I use factually supported, textually cited logical argumentation in all my arguments. Since that is the only kind of logical argument that exists.

No, no you didn't. There is no factual support that the create spells violate the law of conservation of energy and matter and none of your arguments were logical. There is nothing logical about 'it's incomprehensible to science so that can and only means it must violate all physical laws'. Everything you've presented has come with the qualifier that 'so I take it to mean this even though that's not what it says' or fallacies like 'well you have to prove to me magical fairies aren't really responsible for what's going on and if you can't then my point is equally valid'. So even when you've presented facts you've tossed out conclusions that have no relation to the actual fact and can't be reasonably linked to it.

If all your arguments hinge on things like 'if something's incomprehensible then it must violate physical laws' and 'well you can't prove that magic is getting converted because I don't accept seeing PPE spent and energy coming out as proof' this is beyond pointless because you aren't using English or logic in any accepted definition to get to the things you insist as being valid when they aren't.

I do not think you are understanding what the words being used here mean then
Incomprehnsible: this means that it can not be understood, that it uses methods or technices that the viewer is unable to understand or comprehend.
Science: this is a catch all for all science, science lore, scientists, and relations to them
Thus
Magic is incomprehensible to Science means that science is unable to understand or comprehend how magic works.
The scientific method implies that all things that follow natural law are understandable by aplications of that natural law
Therefore if something is NOT understandable by applying science and natural law to it, then it must not be science.
One of the natural laws that is used by science to understand how things work (comprehend things) is the law of the conservation of energy.
If magic is not understandable by applying natural law to it, then it has to be in violation of one or more natural laws (otherwise it could be understood by the application of those laws)
Therefore magic is not bound by natural law

Oh please, I understand the words just fine I don't need you trying to tell me what they mean.
Magic is a science, if it weren't people couldn't study it or teach it because it would be impossible to explain to anyone so they could actually work it. It may have its own laws it operates under but it's still part of reality even if it has some means of warping existing laws for the non-magical universe. For which again just because you think it isn't bound by natural law doesn't mean it must always violate natural law or that no natural laws bind it. That's a ridiculously over broad claim.

In any case I'm done with this. I haven't seen anything that would actually support the claim that magical energy is so special a Techno-Wizard couldn't create a PPE generator to convert electricity into PPE, or that PPE is a finite thing that there's only X amount in the entire megaverse and nothing can be converted into PPE and PPE can't be converted into any other energy. All claims to that being so have required extreme or special definitions for existing text and a wide range of fallacies to try and support it. So have your last word, I won't waste time reading it and not bother with this thread again unless someone else comes up with some actual valid and fresh input.

Prysus wrote:

Greetings and Salutations. Just for fun, a few more book quotes (many of which will probably be ignored) ...


Federation of Magic (Revised); Conjurer

Page 82 wrote:The bulk of a Conjurer's power comes from being able to create objects and animals out of thin air.

This is not about summoning, or transforming, but creating "out of thin air."

If we turn to page 84, we see things like a table, a large pot, and pants are all the same energy. The same problem will occur with animals (animals of differing sizes and weights all costing the same energy). Note: I will admit that game mechanics shouldn't be expected to accurately simulate such minor details.


Rifts Book of Magic

Page 9 wrote:Meanwhile, the desire to meld the twin sciences of magic and technology has given birth to Techno-Wizardry ...

Here it refers to magic as a type of science, interesting. Of course, in the next section (Magic and Culture on the same page, as well as the following pages), the book refers to science and magic as two separate things with comments such as ...

Page 9 wrote:First, let me state that magic is not better than science and technology. It is different.

We continue to see comments like "...people like traditional Native Americans [snip] who mostly reject [snip] science and technology in favor of magic ..." and so on and so on thereafter.

Going a little higher up on the same page though (in the paragraph following the first quote from the BoM) we see this ...

Page 9 wrote:Magic defies logic, and ignores the laws of physics (as we understand them) because it is the mind that grabs the mystic energy and wills it into action or molds it into being; taking energy and turning it into something else.

Well, there we have a quote (written by Kevin Siembiedia), saying that magic ignores physics (despite some people's personal claims). With that said, it also does suggest (as at least one possible outcome) magic energy is transformed into the final result.

Farewell and safe journeys for now.

Thank you Prysus. As usual you can find exactly the quote that cuts to the chase of an issue.
So we have magic as its own 'science' but one that ignores the laws of physics.

I guess that answers that question.
It still leaves if a TW can make a device that does this (the answer looks to be 'if the GM wants to allow it')

Nightmask wrote:predicated on the idea that Techno-Wizards, who routinely build things combining magic and technology, should be able to create a device that's combining magic and technology in order to create magical energy from non-magical energy and not that any 'Joe Blow' can create it.

The problem here is TW is about using magic to power tech, storing magic in tech, using tech to amplify magic. Not to create magic out of tech.

Nightmask wrote:Even though EVERY Joe Blow does actually create magical energy, along with other energies such as heat and radiowaves.

Life creates PPE, Techno-Wizardry (like Bio-Wizardry or Cyber-Mages) might help with enslaving living beings and harvesting their PPE but you would still need a living component.

You know, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't someone in the Three Galaxies or Atlantis working on this problem right now. Say, creating a creature that eats electricity and produces PPE as a waste product (similar to yeast, sugars, and alcohol)?

Mark Hall wrote:You know, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't someone in the Three Galaxies or Atlantis working on this problem right now. Say, creating a creature that eats electricity and produces PPE as a waste product (similar to yeast, sugars, and alcohol)?

I can see the Atlantians having a huge edge on this myself.
Breed up a specialized version of their patented Bio-Wizardry microbes. Tweek them for PPE....now instead of tiny vials of them....vats of them. You could tap the billions of microbes for their PPE.....
Of course the safety of industrial scale vats full of magical bacteria is another issue entirely but meh I say. MEH!

eliakon wrote:

Mark Hall wrote:You know, I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't someone in the Three Galaxies or Atlantis working on this problem right now. Say, creating a creature that eats electricity and produces PPE as a waste product (similar to yeast, sugars, and alcohol)?

I can see the Atlantians having a huge edge on this myself.
Breed up a specialized version of their patented Bio-Wizardry microbes. Tweek them for PPE....now instead of tiny vials of them....vats of them. You could tap the billions of microbes for their PPE.....
Of course the safety of industrial scale vats full of magical bacteria is another issue entirely but meh I say. MEH!

That's what slaves are for!

I had another thought on a possible legal way to do this.
Some combination of the Life Fuel spell and some sort of version of the 'energy spider' magi-tech from the Black Vault. Use electricity (and TW) to make a temporary magical life form out of energy (something like a hologram from star trek), then tap that for PPE.