On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:27:40 GMT, Bryan Derksen
<bryan.derksen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Tim Little wrote:
>> On 2008-02-25, Wildepad <noreplies> wrote:
>>> I think it is obvious that if they have the amount of information
>>> about our culture necessary to do that, their procedure would be far
>>> different from the original premise.
>>
>> It's so closely identical with their own past that even the lottery
>> numbers are the same, and they have ample information about many
>> different drawings in arbitrary weeks from the time period they're
>> examining. Yet they have no idea about anything else in that same
>> period?
>
>The future-people appear to be quite confident that by getting the
>lottery winnings into a particular person's hands they'll set in motion
>a chain of events that saves the world.
Their information might be limited to a single newspaper article
telling that a winner said he was going to support a particular
company whose name later passed down through the ages as a harbinger
of evil.
They would assume, therefore, that if anyone else won, that support
would not be given, creating a substantially different outcome.
>IMO Wildepad's just carrying on his pattern of using any justification
>that comes to mind to preserve the original scenario, no matter how
>illogical or implausible. And doing so in a thread that was started to
>discuss that very pattern, aptly enough.
I am simply trying to show how the assumptions that some people make
do not apply because their view of the scenario is very limited and
does not take into account many relevant factors.
The fact that it's in this thread is perversely apt because the
pattern does repeat --
I pose a scenario and ask a question within that framework.
Rather than answering the question, someone gives their shallow,
knee-jerk reaction to an aspect of the scenario, usually because it
does not fit their personal opinions or prejudices, whether that
aspect, as they see it, actually exists or is at all important.
I try to explain how such a similar situation has existed in the past
or could come into being.
Although what I state in those explanations was in mind all along, I'm
accused of creating wild justifications.
etc. etc. etc.
Fortunately, I do receive very valuable answers to most questions. The
fact that they're a tiny part of the bandwidth is unfortunate but
unavoidable.
One might argue that I should include all possible information in the
op so as to prevent misunderstandings. I don't for a simple reason --
the post would be tens of thousands of lines long, and even then there
would be details left out because they are too trivial to mention.
Also, certain details of how a scenario could arise are mutable, a
variety of situations/actions could create the same effect.
For example: in the scenario currently under dissection, the most
likely backstory is that it's a graduate student's project. The bias
against the past is lifting, but there is little support for anything
to do with pre-rebirth history, so knowledge of this era is very
limited, and he has access to only the most minimal resources.
A single disc of a newspaper's archives was recently found and
translated. It contained info that a person winning the lottery was
going to support a certain company. One of the few things that
survived in their language is a connection between that company and
unmitigated evil.
Without knowing exactly what a lottery is, except that a certain set
of numbers is drawn and whoever wins becomes instantly important, the
student's thesis is that if someone else is given the numbers for a
pervious drawing, and doesn't support that company, the wars and
plagues will not happen.
He is allowed to pursue the project because the community leaders see
a humanitarian issue in helping other universes avoid the tragedies in
their own past, but since there is no obvious benefit, he must make do
with the resources at hand.
The only people available is a small group from another research
project -- students who are gathering information by forays into the
'past'. They understand and/or speak a smattering of the language of
our era, realize that you have to watch for automobiles when crossing
a street, and a host of other things that we believe any four-year-old
should know.
This group welcomes an integration with this new project because it
helps justify their existence, and it might help provide an answer to
a major stumbling block -- contact with people is almost always
unfruitful and carries unknown dangers.
At the beginning of their project, some students did not return to the
transit point, meaning they were lost forever, and others had alarming
confrontations.
(One repeated incident is going into a local distribution center,
picking up a magazine or newspaper, walking out with it, and ending up
being chased down the street and having the item snatched from their
hand amid angry, shouted threats. One word is often heard during the
harangue: "pay." Since their understanding of the word is synonymous
with "be sorry" (as in: 'You'll pay for this.'), the general belief is
that one must, for some reason, express great regret before being
allowed access to the community's archived information, but
where/when/how they should show their sorrowfulness is a complete
mystery.)
Because of such dangers, they instituted a 'no contact' rule -- you go
in, look around, and come back without talking to anyone or touching
anything. No one has been lost or seriously inconvenienced since then,
but the amount of information they've been able to collect has become
very limited.
This new project offers them hope because it means that a contact
person will be able to offer information, and as everyone knows, when
someone provides information, they want to be friends and must be
excused minor foibles in their appearance and actions.
So you have a person with an imperfect grasp of the language, very
little knowledge of the society, and willing to provide what they know
on the sole condition that the recipient of the info not support one
particular company.
Now why didn't I lay that all out in the op?
1) Despite it's length, it still leaves out many factors -- after the
reduction of mankind, they reverted to communism (a primitive survival
mechanism), so have no concept of money or even bartering; they have a
natural dislike for large populations (which can attract attacks) and
live in small villages connected by mass transit, so they have no
understanding of automobiles; etc. etc. etc.
2) Each thing which is presented could be attacked by someone who
cannot understand the entire scenario or wishes to pick nits to try to
show how smart they think they are.
3) It's complete backstory -- only impressions and suggestions of it
will occur in the finished story.
4) It's only one of many such scenarios which could bring about the
same situation.
A) An intrauniverse traveler might be in trouble for going back to
various periods of history and giving them technology to free the
masses from drudgery, but visits to those universes 20-30 years later
show many are war-ravaged or completely uninhabitable. To vindicate
himself, he comes up with a way to prevent the worst series of wars
and plagues. He has no more knowledge of our now than he does of 14th
C Rome, 9th C China, etc., but must act quickly before his license is
pulled. etc.
B) Because of troubles caused by intrauniverse travel by early
explorers, there are strict laws and restriction concerning such
excursions. Someone sees that virtually nothing will ever be done
because the bureaucrats take decades to rip apart and put back
together even the simplest proposed trip. He feels compelled to try to
help as many universes as possible avoid the wars and plagues, but
must do it covertly, with no more knowledge of history than he can
find in the local library and no more resources than he's able to
assemble privately. etc.
etc. etc. etc.
There is a long list of possible backstories that lead to the same
situation as in the op.
--
|
