The Dresden Files > DF Reference Collection
The YLC (Why Little Chicago) thread
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: X on November 05, 2012, 10:25:59 PM ---Was he influenced? Absolutely, but he made the choice freely.
--- End quote ---
That strikes me as containing a contradiction in terms.
Aminar:
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 06, 2012, 02:37:21 AM ---That strikes me as containing a contradiction in terms.
--- End quote ---
Only if you don't believe in free will. If I teach someone a specific moral code and they follow it it's still their choice. Where do you see the contradiction? Because influence is impossible to avoid.
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Aminar on November 06, 2012, 02:54:07 AM ---Only if you don't believe in free will. If I teach someone a specific moral code and they follow it it's still their choice.
--- End quote ---
If, when faced with a decision, they follow a pre-existing code rather than making an active choice, that seems to me not to be an exercise of free will.
(ETA: as it happens, from direct personal experience of OCD, I do not believe in free will in RL being anything like as free as it is posited to be in the DV. I am trying not to let this shade my arguments too much, but, well, that may be beyond my control.)
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Cozarkian on November 05, 2012, 09:21:53 PM ---There is a logical fallacy here. Part of your argument depends on the future being fixed and part of it depends on the future being changeable. If the future can be changed such that Gatekeeper can prevent Harry from using LC at the wrong time, then Gatekeeper can't look in the future and see exactly how much damage occurred from the accident, because that future could also be changed.
--- End quote ---
Not if what the Gatekeeper is seeing is a finite set of possible futures, from which he can select one by an exercise of his free will, but which, once selected, are then deterministic absent other acts of free will. Which is a model that I think fits as well with what we know about time travel, and from Uriel about most humans using free will rather rarely, as any other.
--- Quote ---The point is, if Harry's benefactor was depending on the accident to cause the perfect amount of delay, that plan leaves a lot of wiggle room for something to go wrong. Given there are multiple very powerful entities that might use that time to ruin the plan, it is far too risky for someone to use the accident as a delay mechanism, and if the benefactor could be certain the plan couldn't be ruined even by his peers, then there is no competition at all, because the outcome is inevitable.
--- End quote ---
How many of those very powerful entities have free will, though ? In the precise significant sense that humans have it, rather than the "I do what I am supposed to or I become Lucifer the Second" sense that Uriel does
--- Quote --- Unlike a math proof, solitaire has multiple different outcomes depending on how the game is played. It's possible none of them will result in victory or for there to be different paths to victory.
--- End quote ---
And all of those outcomes are deducible from a full knowledge of the state of all the cards at the beginning of the game plus sufficient intelligence.
--- Quote --- It isn't possible for Gatekeeper to look into the future and know with zero possibility of error what will happen. Such knowledge would require either that the future is unchangeable (which would mean he couldn't change the future to save Harry in the first place)
--- End quote ---
If information from the future were changeable to that extent, why all the careful working around the possibility of paradox ?
--- Quote ---The mere possibility that another player might act to ruin his plan would prevent him from using a plan that leaves so much time for someone else to step in and interfere.
--- End quote ---
Your logic there feels to be skipping over some steps in the assessment.
--- Quote --- If that was the goal she could have not revealed how dangerous she was by threatening him with illusions. She would have been better served just to let him use it with nothing more than a quick plea and offer to help protect him if he picks up the coin.
--- End quote ---
Perhaps.
Perhaps, alternatively, Lash is thinking the same way I read Mab as thinking at the end of GS; that the best way to lull Harry into a false sense of security, and to successfully manipulate him longer term, is to give the impression of trying to manipulate him in some less subtle way and failing.
--- Quote ---So she tries a strategy, gives up on it when an even better opportunity arises, then returns to the same strategy (in WN) she previously abandoned? I doubt it.
--- End quote ---
I am sorry, i am totally failing to parse how you derive that from my suggestion. Could you expand on your logic here.
--- Quote ---Lasciel plays long-term. She'll apply the pressure every time an opportunity arises until eventually a situation arises where Harry will take the bait.
--- End quote ---
Will she ? Or will applying pressure every time only incline him to balk whenever she suggests anything at all ?
Cozarkian:
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 06, 2012, 09:24:27 PM ---Not if what the Gatekeeper is seeing is a finite set of possible futures, from which he can select one by an exercise of his free will, but which, once selected, are then deterministic absent other acts of free will. Which is a model that I think fits as well with what we know about time travel, and from Uriel about most humans using free will rather rarely, as any other.
--- End quote ---
That's not time travel then. He's not going against the flow of time and he's not changing the past, he's just guiding the future. The problem of course is then the Gatekeeper practically becomes the master of time and the single most powerful individual in the entire universe. Unless there is some strange reason his perfect knowledge of all possible futures is limited to specific events. Even then, given the importance of those apparent events, he would be way more powerful than JB has ever hinted.
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 06, 2012, 09:24:27 PM ---How many of those very powerful entities have free will, though ? In the precise significant sense that humans have it, rather than the "I do what I am supposed to or I become Lucifer the Second" sense that Uriel does
--- End quote ---
See, that's exactly what I mean. Now the Gatekeeper has absolutely no peers because not only does he have the same knowledge of all the other powerful entities, he's the only one with the free will to actually control outcomes as he sees fit. It's not even a competition, now, Gatekeeper can wipe the floor with Uriel, Mab, Ferrovax, Drakul.
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 06, 2012, 09:24:27 PM ---And all of those outcomes are deducible from a full knowledge of the state of all the cards at the beginning of the game plus sufficient intelligence.
--- End quote ---
Yes, but you don't know which result you will get. x - 2 - 2 = 0 always results in x = 4, no matter what order you perform the steps, the outcome of solitaire however, is not predetermined, only the possible outcomes are.
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 06, 2012, 09:24:27 PM ---If information from the future were changeable to that extent, why all the careful working around the possibility of paradox ?
--- End quote ---
Precisely because the future is changeable. If it wasn't changeable paradox would be impossible and it would never be a concern.
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 06, 2012, 09:24:27 PM ---Your logic there feels to be skipping over some steps in the assessment.
--- End quote ---
Sorry, I think I touched on the missing information in some of my earlier posts, but didn't flesh it out here. Basically, let's call the accident as a means of delay as plan A. There was a lot of intervening time between the accident and the use of LC, which leaves a lot of time for someone else to screw up the plan. I think any entity savy enough to design plan A would also be able to design plans B - Z (one of which is manipulating the time of Molly's phone call). Plans B - Z would all have less intervening time, increasing the odds of the plan being successful because other entities would have less of an opportunity to interfere. Thus, because Plan A is comparatively easier for someone else to defeat, Harry's benefactor would have used a different plan. Thus, I believe the car accident was unrelated and someone actually did use a different plan (specifically, someone influenced when Molly would call).
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 06, 2012, 09:24:27 PM ---Perhaps.
Perhaps, alternatively, Lash is thinking the same way I read Mab as thinking at the end of GS; that the best way to lull Harry into a false sense of security, and to successfully manipulate him longer term, is to give the impression of trying to manipulate him in some less subtle way and failing.
--- End quote ---
I would accept that if PG had just been written. However, hindsight and WoJ clearly indicate that Lash actually changed, which in turn suggests the key moments where we saw Lash being perplexed by Harry (such as in PG) were actually key moments where Lash was being changed by Harry's perspective.
--- Quote from: the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh on November 06, 2012, 09:24:27 PM ---I am sorry, i am totally failing to parse how you derive that from my suggestion. Could you expand on your logic here.
Will she ? Or will applying pressure every time only incline him to balk whenever she suggests anything at all ?
--- End quote ---
Basically, I think Lash's behavior in WN and Dead Beat are generally consistent and that her behavior in PG by secretly fixing LC would be an outlier. I don't think her actions are consistent with a strategy of not applying pressure whenever she has sufficient leverage. Honestly, I could be wrong, because I can't clearly recall every conversation/negotiation that Harry and Lash have.
Interestingly, I notice that I am arguing against both Gatekeeper and Lash as the entity that fixed LC. It would seem likely either you don't think Gatekeeper arranged the accident or that you don't think Lash knew about the flaw in LC. Of course, the two arguments aren't necessarily inconsistent (Lash could have known about the flaw but Gatekeeper fixed it), but it does make me wonder if you actually believe everything you are arguing.
Also, one other thought. WoJ tells us it would take the whole White Council to defeat Mab outside of Winter. Rashid is a member of the White Council. We've also seen some of the other members of the Wouncil are very powerful. Thus, we can infer Rashid isn't nearly as powerful as Mab and by extension isn't nearly as powerful as her peer, Uriel. Since it would take a creature with the knowledge level of Uriel to enact plan A, and since Rashid is not as powerful as Uriel, I believe it is unlikely that he could have so perfectly set up the crash.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version