"Some claim not only are there more planes we don't know about, but entirely new Multiverses out there, full of alien beings and their beliefs. These beings point out strange lifeforms like the Keepers and Chososium as examples. They also point out the Far Realm, a place which lies outside our Multiverse, yet is connected to it in a mysteryious way."
"Besides the fact that Clueless Primes each see the Multiverse differently, and we Planars all know that they are, for the most part at least, incorrect. However, could there be a multiverse, or perhaps more than one, beyond our own? Such places would be entirely alien in nature, most likely beyond our comprehension."
(turns toward his audience)
"So fellow Planewalkers, what are your thoughts on this issue?"
"How true, and certainly there's alot of darks to be found."
"I'll ask this however, just how expansive are the doors of this, our City of Doors? Do the portals of Her Dread Majesty extend not just to all places that are, but to all places that might and could be? And could they even extend to all times for those places at the will of The Lady?"
*takes another sip and allows the words to sink in*
"And if so, might those doors remain unseen to most of us, but still out there? Or might they remain locked, and perhaps for good reason. Might our multiverse remain locked inside it's own little cage for no other reason than to protect and shelter it from the lions that exist not within, but without?"
"We... well, some of us, are aware of portals within Sigil that reach places that are best called 'other levels of this reality', or 'hyperreality'. Our own level of existance is less vivid, less 'real' if you will. The beings there see us as we see illusions in a way. But still to them Sigil is Sigil, and for one example we have of a being from one of those places coming here, they still avoided the wrath of our Bladed Queen. What does that say I ask concerning the nature of Sigil in relation to these 'other' places that lurk out there, just beyond waking sight, unheard on the wind yet whispering, and present but unknown in all but the madness of our unfortunate betters?"
"My ears are keen and they hear much you understand, and I might be willing to offer such information for a price. It all depends on how much your willing to pay for it you see. For whatever exists out there, some of us our goals and aims remain much the same."
*plays with a tiny, sparkling soulgem upon a gold bracelet*
"It all fascinates and scares me at the same time, as theres no telling what is out there"
"Some claim not only are there more planes we don't know about, but entirely new Multiverses out there, full of alien beings and their beliefs. These beings point out strange lifeforms like the Keepers and Chososium as examples. They also point out the Far Realm, a place which lies outside our Multiverse, yet is connected to it in a mysteryious way."
No. There is nothing "outside" our multiverse. The definition of "multiverse" (and preceeding it, "universe") prevent any such distinction. (Some have suggested the use of the term "omniverse", which is semantically equivalent to the previous "all existence" terms".) The Far Realms, whose existence is debated hotly, are part of this multiverse, if we presume their existence. Nothing that is can lie outside our multiverse. Our multiverse is defined to be all that exists. Only that which does not exist can be "outside" our multiverse, but it is not worth considering, for it does not exist. Anything hyperreal, or existing on other levels of reality that we cannot percieve is part of this multiverse. That's what the word "multiverse" means. It means the same thing as "universe". "Anything that exists anywhere". The phrase "exists outside our universe" is semantically null. It contradicts itself.
However, could there be a multiverse, or perhaps more than one, beyond our own?
No. If it exists, and has location, it is part of our multiverse, which is also our universe. I have no doubt however, that there is quite a bit outside what we may consider the normal bounds of our known cosmology.
Can we quit playing semantic games with ontology yet?
If you are indeed interested in that which does not exist however, look to the shadows to start, for shadow is one of the only lacks of existence that most can percieve. Shadows are naught but the absence of light, they are made of the lack of something, yet we "see" them everyday. I say "see" because we percieve them visually without seeing anything, for the shadows are, technically speaking, not there.
Of course, there are an infinite number of things like shadow, but most have forgotten to consider them, though they are all around you. There is the absence of water, or the lack of air (of which there is an infinite of not-amount, in the vacuum. I say "not -amount" because the amount of the absence of something cannot be meaningfully measured) there is also the lack of fire in places, and sometimes one might find an area devoid of earth, and so on to more esoteric things, such as not-good (which isn't evil) and not-evil (which is not good) or one might find a place where there is not a mirror, and in that place one might notice that it has quite a bit of not-mirror, in fact. Interestingly, not-good and not-evil are supiciously like that which we commonly call "neutrality", which both does exist as a concept and also as a lack of other concepts. Perhaps you should ask the rilmani more about the shadows.
Shadow is merely not light, common enough that we have another word for it. If you want to find that which is outside our multiverse, you must not look for that which exists outside it, but that which is in it, but does not exist. Catch my drift?
Then multiverse would exists in 4 diamensi of mayter and 2 or more of time. But universe exists in 3 diamensio of matter and 1 of time.So anything that exists the 5-11 diamens would not exists in the universe. But in a mulitiverse of it own.
Universe (n): Everything that exists anywhere.
This word is unconcerned with the manner of anything's existence, the dimensionality of existence, or any other such ontological questions. It's a nice way of saying "The totality of all things that exist in any manner."
In real life science the term "universe" is generally taken to refer to the expanse of space-time in which the earth exists and everything else in that region of space-time. It does not include things that may exist in separated regions of space-time, those would be other universes. That's why theories involving travel through the singularity of a black hole may refer to you ending up in a different or alternate universe, not another part of the same universe.
"In regards to the use of 'verse', it is simply a failure on the part of mortal language and understanding that this is a topic of contention. One must always keep in mind that fleshy beings did not watch things unfold from the beginning, nor have they tapped even a fraction of the true 'dark' that is and was. Even when something is learned, it is learned wrong, or lost and forgotten... or hidden. And, of course, things change."
In real life science the term "universe" is generally taken to refer to the expanse of space-time in which the earth exists and everything else in that region of space-time. It does not include things that may exist in separated regions of space-time, those would be other universes. That's why theories involving travel through the singularity of a black hole may refer to you ending up in a different or alternate universe, not another part of the same universe.
Which is a misuse of the word "universe". The whole point of the word is that it describes ONE system, ALL inclusive. The definition of the word precludes there being more than one, or anything existing outside of it. If you want to talk about one specific region of space-time, define some bounds and call it something.
I love the devaluation of language and meaning as much as the next guy, (maybe more) but if you're going to have a discussion, we humans generally need to predicate it on language, to which the participants must agree on denotations, if not connotations, or the particular words involved.
The word "multiverse" started being used, as near I can tell, because someone wanted something that sounded "bigger" than "universe". Sorry, you can't have it. You don't need it, and you can't have it. We already have a word for the biggest there is, you can't have a new one for stuff bigger than that.
I find it rather funny that I'm arguing on semantics and syntactics, when I personally believe neither truly applies to anything but facts of reality in an objective sense, and neither do I believe in objective facts of reality.
One must always keep in mind that fleshy beings did not watch things unfold from the beginning, nor have they tapped even a fraction of the true 'dark' that is and was. Even when something is learned, it is learned wrong, or lost and forgotten... or hidden. And, of course, things change."
Hence the applicability of the clarity of vision one can only find when one realizes at the very least that the ciphers, bleakers, and chaosmen are all the same faction, philisophically speaking. As are the free league, fraternity of order, and society of sensation. All 6 are making the same ontological point from different directions.
Join the Grand Unified Faction. Or don't. You will eventually anyway.
You only think we don't get it. Some of us know exactly how much there is to get, but we're really not telling. Language couldn't express it anyway.
I'd know this! In Modern Scientific terms, Universe is not all inclusive, but only applys to this existence, based upon the modern popular theory that other existences may lie outside our universe.
To clafify, a new term, "Quantum Universe"(Also Parralel Universe) was created. Now I don't neccessarily believe in the theory, but I understand it, and frankly, its possibilities for Sci-Fi stories and Planescape type Fantasy are astounding to say the least.
If, like Mr.Goat, you want to see every in terms of ONE universe, than imagine the Multiverse(That is Inner, Outer, Astral, Ethereal, and the Prime) as a galaxy. Now other Galaxies(Multiverses) would exist, and the Far-Realm could be the space between them. Now the Planescape Multiverse is about Belief, imagine Multiverses that revolve around things other than Belief. Also imagine what strange beings might lerk out there somewhere.
Now THAT is what I am talking about.
If, like Mr.Goat, you want to see every in terms of ONE universe, than imagine the Multiverse(That is Inner, Outer, Astral, Ethereal, and the Prime) as a galaxy. Now other Galaxies(Multiverses) would exist, and the Far-Realm could be the space between them. Now the Planescape Multiverse is about Belief, imagine Multiverses that revolve around things other than Belief. Also imagine what strange beings might lerk out there somewhere.
Right. And all those things exist, they are therefore included in the term "universe".
I just happen to think that "multiverse" is a dumb word, because it implies many universes, which is a contradiction.
The problem wasn't with the word universe in the first place, it's that when people wanted to subdivide it, they chose to try to use words that would describe supersets of the universe, instead of subsets. "Parallel Universes" or "multiverses" would be better described as "sub-verses", or some such word bizarre word. "Quantum Universe" makes sense to me, but it's still grammatically irksome, especially so considering they're all theories, and the actual topology of reality is unknown currently, despite being modeled fairly well by several disparate theories.
Quantum/Parallel Universes are subsets, not supersets or disunions with the universe. I know what everyone's saying about multiple multi/universes, I'm just arguing against the obfuscation of language. For once, I'm arguing for increasing the clarity of the language, rather than decreasing it. Weird.
I envy you if you have players interested in Planescape plots based in quantum physics and ontology. Mine seem to want nothing to do with either.
Nice to see that we all latched primarily onto the semanitc argument, which was only really a secondary point to the pseudo-fiction about shadows I wrote though.
I can buy Incenjucar's definition of multiverse, however it is a strong deviation from it's cannonical use, and thus natrually hard to bring into common usage.
To extrapolate that into a roleplaying setting there are several problems. The term is only designed to operate within the bounds of spacial dimensions (arguably temporal ones, as well). Essentially, each plane is a universe to itself. A single entity that encompasses all spacial dimensions in its reality. For all we know, all of the planes could occupy the exact same set of spacial dimensions, though each is on a different beliefial/substantial axis (axes?).
I'm not talking about having 5 or 6 spacial dimensions, though it operates similarly. For any given beliefial/substantial plane, it occupies the entirity of its universe, giving a plethora of universes which could be defined in total as a multiverse. If there are axes beyond these for things to exist upon, they may well fall beyond the purview of the multiverse as now defined.
Just because a word's roots seem to indicate the grand sum of things doesn't mean that the word is an all-encompassing term, particularly in a world where firmament is real and a demon can have you for tea.
So, back to the main topic, what does everyone think of the idea of other Multiverses existing outside the Planescape one? Here are several different possibilities:
"Bizzarro" Multiverse:
Everything in this Multiverse is the opposite of the Planescape Multiverse. Examples: Upper Planes are Evil, Lower Planes are good, Lady of Pain is an open, vocal ruler, Shemiska runs a charity, an orphanage and a soup kitchen for the homeless of Sigil.
Alien Multiverse:
EVERYTHING is completely alien, nightmarish, or beyond comprehension to mortals. This could represent alien beliefs, or simply be so to speak.
Divine Multiverse:
A Multiverse where the Gods exist in physical form, and serve beings as far above them in terms of intelligence and power, as they are above us mortals. A kind of Super-Reality so to speak.
Alternate Multiverse:
A Multiverse that is similiar, but differently aligned than our own. For instance, there are only three Outer Planes, or only a Prime-like plane exists.
Originally posted by Sword_Of_Geddon
"Bizzarro" Multiverse:
Everything in this Multiverse is the opposite of the Planescape Multiverse. Examples: Upper Planes are Evil, Lower Planes are good, Lady of Pain is an open, vocal ruler, Shemiska runs a charity, an orphanage and a soup kitchen for the homeless of Sigil.
*coughs*
"Listen up, my name is Shemeska, and I already do run a charity. After all, being one of the leading non elected figures of prestige and note within Sigil, I do my best to better the city around me."
*preens*
"My ever so worthy charity is the... Yugoloth benificiary group... serving the needs of worthy Yugoloths within Sigil. And as we all know, the only type of Yugoloth that matters is a greater Yugoloth, the lesser 'loths can just pike it and follow orders if they know whats best for them. And being as how there's only one worthy greater Yugoloth permenantly in Sigil, gee, I guess all this money happens to be for me."
"Hmm... I wonder if my donations to myself are tax deductable. Hmm, I might have no tax liability this next cycle, oh a pity. Muahahaha!"
Originally posted by mrgoat
I just happen to think that "multiverse" is a dumb word, because it implies many universes, which is a contradiction.
I can buy Incenjucar's definition of multiverse, however it is a strong deviation from it's cannonical use, and thus natrually hard to bring into common usage.
"To begin with, consider the differences between 'multiverse' and 'multiverses'. Multiple universes would require plural usage. This leaves MultiversE as a singular term, and thus, one thing.
As far as common usage... mortals invented the concept of silent letters... I wouldn't expect anything rational from them to begin with."
Well, my dictionary defines universe as "All matter and energy, including Earth, the galaxies, and all the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole," and I feel compelled to donate 2¢ since I think expanding the definition of universe to mean "everything that exists" is a bit off.
Not off at all. In fact, my dictionary says the universe is "Everything that exists anywhere". My other dictionary says "All created things viewed as constituting one system or whole; the whole body of things, or of phenomena;".
Wordnet and Websters (respectively) are as good dictionaries as any.
"To begin with, consider the differences between 'multiverse' and 'multiverses'. Multiple universes would require plural usage. This leaves MultiversE as a singular term, and thus, one thing.
But we talk of one multiverse as a collection of universes, which is also part of a collection of other multiverses. Then people lump the whole thing under the "Omniverse", which actually means the same thing as "Universe".
Nor would I expect rationality from me, being that I believe the word itself doesn't actually hold any meaning. I don't believe in the existence of the concept of "rationality".
In fact, this entire conversation has been more of a monkeys at typewriters type of thing than any cohesive argument.
But we talk of one multiverse as a collection of universes, which is also part of a collection of other multiverses. Then people lump the whole thing under the "Omniverse", which actually means the same thing as "Universe".
as one you´d describe as "clueless prime", interested in the multiverse (or "whatever-verse", for the sake of this discussion) around him, the term "collection" stikes an odd chord in me.
whenever there is a collection, someone had to collect it.
so WHO collected that what we call our multiversum (1) ?
are there beings "out there" that defy our bounded comprehension of being and existence, collecting planes like a child collects marbles?
if so, then there indeed would be several multiversae, each composed of multiple "universes", or planes (2), each, for the sake of the metaphor, being the bag of marbles those incomprehensible children would own.
i do not know where in common cosmology to place hyperreality (inside it? above it? outside of our multiverse?), but the concept of hyperreality again strikes an odd chord in me:
those beings originating from hyperreality seem to view us (3) as something like illusions, beings less real than they.
less real...
*waits to let the phrase sink in*
are there perhaps several degrees of density of reality?
*again waits a few seconds*
illusions, to us "great wheelers" (3), are less real (despite that some of them can be deadly to some of us (3) ). we are less real to hyperreal beings and more real to illusions. that suggest that there indeed is something like "existential density", or "density of reality".
that concept immediately raises several questiones:
- is it possible to alter the existential density of something, be it object or being?
- can spells accomplish that?
- can these spells be used to "lower" the existential density of something so far that it ceases to exist? that seems to imply that the target of such a spell could not be resurrected by any means, making said spell the ultimate weapon.
maybe hyperreal beings are those plane-collecting children i mentioned. maybe they are in the same bag of marbles we are. that is not for me to fathom, at least not here, and not now.
*bows and steps back to his seat*
(1)
"our" referring to the one we exist in, "multiversum" referring to what you pundit planars call the great ring, complete with inner planes, outer planes, the plane of shadow (which the speaker does not know whether to place it within the great wheel or not), the etheral and astral planes and everything that escapes me right now but is commonly referred to as... well, the known planes.
(2)
which the clueless prime i am understands as individual universae, each with its own dimensions of space and time, and some with dimensions unknown to me. others might be contrary to that definition of universe, to which i lay no claim of correctness to.
(3) "us" referring to the entirety of being living on the great wheel, in the case that hyperreality is placed outside of it.
p.s.: to some of you, it may seem odd to listen to a speech composed of footnotes and p.s.´es. be assured that it took long and hard learning to master that art. dabus speak in symbols, death speaks in capital letters. i occasionally speak in footnotes. *bows*
The classical definition of a "universe" is the sum of the world, the heavens, and their inhabitants. By extension, the "universe" compromises that which is physical, that which is believed or imagined, and that which dwells within both.
There's a nice, friendly definition.
All things physical - the world, the elements, and all else with a definite and concrete (though not necessarily finite) existence - are therefore a part of the "universe".
All things believed or imagined - those things which have no definite form, but which have (or can have) a conceptual existence - are therefore a part of the "universe".
All that inhabits the world and heavens - thus, either physical or conceptual realities and hence real and imagined entities - are therefore a part of the "universe".
This demonstrates, all things finite and real, all things conceptualised or able to be conceptualised, and all that inhabits either (or both) of these realms, is part of the "universe".
The converse of this is that all things not of the "universe" - the antiverse, if you will - are those things that do not or cannot exist, are not or cannot be conceptualised or imagined, and do not inhabit the spaces of existence, belief or imagination.
Originally posted by Persephone Imytholin
All things believed or imagined - those things which have no definite form, but which have (or can have) a conceptual existence - are therefore a part of the "universe".
please take into consideration that imagination is subject to the one who imagines.
a plant or an animal cannot imagine most things that seem trivial and their existence proven to us, and there are things we can not begin to imagine, for example the far realms. nevertheless, they exist.
so whose imagination defines your definition of universe?
"Exactly my point Tauster. Ah finally, a fellow intelligent Prime, although inferior"
(Stops himself)
"Sorry, those Red Dragon instincts are hard to suppress sometimes. But anyway, now we have alot of alternate existenses and Planes if you will. I feel an urge to bring our discussions and theories toghether, allow me."
(Pauses, then pulls a small, to a dragon at least, chalkboard out of a pocket diamension, along with some chalk for writting)
"First off, we got the Multiversal Ring"
(Draws Outer Planes, Inner Planes, Astral Plane, Ethereal Plane, and the Theorized Ordial Plane, all connected in a triangle shape)
http://www.planewalker.com/portals/index.shtml
"Secondly, we have the Far Realm, a place outside our comprehension, which was first discovered when those weird Chronomancers traveled either so far backward, or forward in time, that time itself had no meaning"
(Draws Far Realm as a backdrop around the Multiversal Ring)
http://www.planewalker.com/loz/il_kano.shtml
"Thirdly, we have Hyper-Reality, a place which seems more real to us, while the natives view us as less real"
(Draws Hyper-Reality as a orb above the Multiversal Ring)
"Next, we have the theoritical realms of Lesser, or Greater spatial diamensions, think, we are three diamensional, these places are either one diamensional, two diamensional, or more than three spatial diamensions"
(Draws these theorized places as multiple rings inside the Multiversal ring, for the lesser spatial diamensions, and as a big ring around the multiversal ring, for the fouth, fifth, and greater spatial diamensions.)
"Finally, we have the Plane of Time, which has branches in all planes where time has meaning."
(Draws Time as a backdrop inside Multiversal Ring)
(Gazes around at audience to make sure they are still paying attention)
"Now the Far Realm may led to other Multiverses, but, it isn't the only place that does"
(Points at the places of One, two, four and greater spatial diamensions)
Interesting in that all of these bizzarre places, the Far-Realm, Hyper-Reality, Time, and the lesser and greater spatial diamensions, all experence existence quite differently than we do.
(Please just except Multiverse as the term, I don't want this to turn into a pointless terminology or grammical debate)
Can't it be both? Besides, all debates are pointless, except as fun. Besides, your graph of multiverses is just as much an essay on the grammar of the uberverse as our informaticoligual debate is on the grammar of the language, and (besides) many would posit that language has much power in defining the quantiversesum. We are, essentially, talking about the same things. Everything's valid in discussion.
I wholeheatedly endorse tauser's style when it comes to making up words. This whole discussion would be a lot more amusing to me if we all made up more words, and amusing me is after all, the whole point. I like the footnotes as well.
so whose imagination defines your definition of universe?
A signer would tell you it's them that whose imagination defines all things.
A more rational being might tell you it's collectively defined by all thinking beings that are in it, and that it only exists because we percieve it to, and that we only exist because we and others percieve us to. It's a nice little tautological ontology. (Anyone notice yet that I absolutely adore that word? ontology.... ooonnnnntoooologieeeee... it just slides off the tongue. And onto the floor. Uh-oh, it's running away.)
Quickly! Someone catch that ontology! We might need it!
I however, can tell you the truth: It's not one being's imagination, or a collective imagination, or even some strange case of our multiverse having a kind of sentience that it can experience itself, nay, it's all *pauses for effect*
.
.
.
(still pausing)
.
.
.
*points at random passerby* "That guy's shoes!"
But in Planescape terms, I wholeheartedly embrace it.
Originally posted by Tauster :: so whose imagination defines your definition of universe?
All entities are, by definition, part of the universe. The question of whose imagination is thus immaterial - all imaginations are part of the universe, and therefore define the universe.
So opinions on the points I made on my post before my last post?
Signed, mrgoat: Professional Troll.
Anyway, I agree now that I think about it, that any other place that would be discovered is technically part of the Multiverse, since Multiverse means every Plane in existence, right?
So now that we got that settled, I believe what I am referring to is Planar groups, like the Great Wheel(Outer Planes), or the Inner Planes, or something along those lines.
Now can we talk about Elsewhere?
Originally posted by mrgoat
All created things viewed as constituting one system or whole
Our specific region of space-time does constitute a single system and refers to the whole of that system.
Anyway, if you want to use words only as far as their roots allow, I suggest you go learn an ancient form of Greek or Latin. We probably started calling our region of space a "universe" way back in the day when astronomers and theologians and the like drew a huge bubble that was supposed to include all the stars as far out as they went and believed that that constituted all there was and thus dubbed it "universe." Now we believe that it might be possible to have completely dimensionally separated regions of space-time. Rather than saying that those are all part of a bigger universe, and calling our specific region something else, we just admit that there can be more than one, and put a more rigid definition on the layman's version of the word. Renaming our region would be irritating and pointless, like renaming atoms just because they aren't technically the smallest things there are anymore.
Anyway, like I said in my first post, as far as the Planescape setting is concerned, the multiverse is composed of 5 different regions (innver, ethereal, prime, astral, outer), with the inner and outer regions being subdivided into smaller regions. So really, anything that doesn't fit in with this cosmology could be viewed as "outside" the multiverse. I think that technically the City of Union might fall into this category.
Hm, I like the idea of the reverse-alignment universe. I think it would change things more than you might think. This is a universe in which the Tanar'ri and Baatezu probably wouldn't be locked in the Blood War. That means the Tanar'ri could bring their full force to bear against the Gaurdinals, Eladrin, Archons, and Aasimon, with some assistance from the Baatezu. Considering how many times it says in Planescape that if the fiends stopped fighting each other and organized themselves against the upper planes they'd win. Especially in 3.5 rules where Balors and Pit Fiends are on par with Solars, instead of their definite inferiors. In this universe, the Tanar'ri and Baatezu might well be capable of achieving what the Celestials in the "standard" multiverse could never hope to accomplish.
Hm. I also kind of like the idea of a war between Archons and Aasimon. "This is OUR mountain, dammit! Get the hell out!"
Originally posted by Freefall
Our specific region of space-time does constitute a single system and refers to the whole of that system.
Anyway, if you want to use words only as far as their roots allow, I suggest you go learn an ancient form of Greek or Latin. We probably started calling our region of space a "universe" way back in the day when astronomers and theologians and the like drew a huge bubble that was supposed to include all the stars as far out as they went and believed that that constituted all there was and thus dubbed it "universe." Now we believe that it might be possible to have completely dimensionally separated regions of space-time. Rather than saying that those are all part of a bigger universe, and calling our specific region something else, we just admit that there can be more than one, and put a more rigid definition on the layman's version of the word. Renaming our region would be irritating and pointless, like renaming atoms just because they aren't technically the smallest things there are anymore.
Anyway, like I said in my first post, as far as the Planescape setting is concerned, the multiverse is composed of 5 different regions (innver, ethereal, prime, astral, outer), with the inner and outer regions being subdivided into smaller regions. So really, anything that doesn't fit in with this cosmology could be viewed as "outside" the multiverse. I think that technically the City of Union might fall into this category.
Hm, I like the idea of the reverse-alignment universe. I think it would change things more than you might think. This is a universe in which the Tanar'ri and Baatezu probably wouldn't be locked in the Blood War. That means the Tanar'ri could bring their full force to bear against the Gaurdinals, Eladrin, Archons, and Aasimon, with some assistance from the Baatezu. Considering how many times it says in Planescape that if the fiends stopped fighting each other and organized themselves against the upper planes they'd win. Especially in 3.5 rules where Balors and Pit Fiends are on par with Solars, instead of their definite inferiors. In this universe, the Tanar'ri and Baatezu might well be capable of achieving what the Celestials in the "standard" multiverse could never hope to accomplish.
Hm. I also kind of like the idea of a war between Archons and Aasimon. "This is OUR mountain, dammit! Get the hell out!"
Bizzarro Mt. Celestia: The Six Layers of Mt. Woe(Not to confused with the Abyssal layer in the "Standard" Multiverse)
In all six layers of the nightmarish shadow of that unholy mountain, they wait, seeking to lure unsuspecting travellers to their deaths -Anonymious, speaking of the evil Lantern Archons
I'd imagine Bizzaro Mt.Celestia, Mt. Woe being made of black and sinister obsidian, surrounded by an ocean of blood, while their dark Archon inhabidants(who all resemble their "Real" Multiversal counterparts, only with a dark and nightmarish twist), battle for control of "their" plane with the even more terrififying Aasimon(who have black, rather than white wings, look very attractive, but have a terrififying maleviolent pressence, and hate-filled eyes that hint at their desire of the descruction of all things good)
The hoards of goodness moving against us from the Lower Planes are massing, readying to strike at us in their holy zeal. Soon, soon my bretheren, the final battle that will shake the very multiverse will begin, and Evil shall triumph! - The Cruel Angel's Thesis, from the diary of the Solar Lucifer
Well thats one bizzaro Outer Plane, anyone else have any ideas?
Okay, how about this: Bizarro Mechanus, aka Microsoft Windows world.
Behold the grand plane of Mechanus. A fully mechanized, computerized wonderland. Everything is perfectly orderly, lawful, and efficient. At least, that's what the natives want you to believe.
The truth is that it is a horrible, frustrating realms of random systems failures, harddrive crashes, and constantly breaking and stalling gears and mechanics. The modrons themselves believe that they possess a perfect understanding of the universe and are perfectly efficient. However, ask them a simple question without any logical answer, even something as simple as "describe the flavor purple," will cause them to either simply freeze all activity and function until something reboots them, go berserk and lash out at everything around them before unexpectedly shutting down, or even explode on the spot. There is no way to tell in advance how a modron might react to any given question or situation until it is actually exposed to it. This makes interaction between modrons and most other forms of life extremely hazardous. Mechanus itself tends to behave much the same way. An individual might attempt to access a terminal and have the system lock up before he finishes, or the motherboard might start sparking (which will bring a swarm of modrons to punish the person for obviously being responsible for breaking their machine, since it is perfect and would never do that on its own). Traveling between gears can be extremely dangerous as they may lock up and then start rotating again at random speeds without warning, and travel between different circuit boards is possibly more dangerous due to the unpredictable shortcircuits and power surges that constantly plague them.
I loved Bizzaro Mechanus Malfunctionata(working name), it was an obviously poke at Microsoft(which has been fustrating lately, to say the least, with them realising dozens of different windows versions in a short time, and becoming even more money-obsessed lately, requiring multiple copies of the same Windows program for different computers)
I can just picture a Bill-Gates-estue version of Primus! LOL.
Lets see, how about a Bizzaro Limbo?
The elemental soup changes constantly, as usual, but it's utterly predictable, albeit fairly complex.
What should the Bizzaro fiends(Who are Celestials in the Bizzaro Multiverse), look like. I was thinking along the lines of a compassionate, reptilian look for most of them(Like Cornugons for instance). However, some fiends, like Larvae, Nupperibos or Manes, seem out of place for Celestial versions of those races.
Suggestions?
*sticks claw into one of them* 'Hee Hee!'
In the story I am working on, don't be surprised if a few Bizzarro races and Planes have new names, such as Maleivoi instead of Eladrins, or Erebus instead of Arborea.
The only thing that will be completely the same is the Lady of Pain, and her Dabus.
Bizzarro Arborea, Erebus, Plane of Chaotic Evil and its inhabidants.
Erebus is the Plane of Chaotic Evil incarnate, cruel beyond imagining, wild, and without mercy. The Plane reeks of a constant aura of terror as a whole.
Erebus has three known layers total.
The first is known as the Darkvale. Darkvale is a land of ashs and dust, as well as forests of twisted black trees. The most disturbing aspect of this layer is the fact that sound echos as if a body were in an enclosed space, such as a pipe. The inhabindants, chiefly the Maleivoi, use this effect to their advantage in their terrififying hunts of mortals and animal alike across the plane.
The entire layer is ruled by the Maleivoi, as well as their mortal offspring, the Elves, and their Goddess Lolth, as well as other evil fairie powers, like the Queen of Air and Darkness. All in all, the largest area of the layer is divided into four different realms.
The first is known as the Nightmare Realm(not to be confused with the third layer of the Plane), and consists of a twisted, nightmarish landscape of twisted forests(much like the forest of the Silvanesti after their king got a dragonorb) and empty crumbling black deserts. The Maleivoi conduct their beastial great hunts riding atop their terrififying reptilian carnivorious horses across the realm. It is said that numerious portals dot the realm, which lead to various Prime worlds. In fact, the Maleivoi use these portals to terrifify entire worlds by conducting Great Hunts on unsuspecting Human kingdoms.
The Second realm is known as the Forest of Webs. It consists of an ancient dark forest, full of spiders and their webs. The Elves live here and serve their Goddess, or are used for food for Lolth's many children.
The Third Realm is the Unseelie Court, and consists of a dark forest like Lolth's realm. The entire realm suffers the effects of a raging Hurricane, varying in intensity depending on where the Realm's ruler, the Queen of Air and Darkness, currently lies.
The Forth Realm is home to the darker members of the Celtic Pantheon, and mainly consists of a dark field of green grass, as well as dark, stormy skies(due to the realm's proximity to the Third Realm). The dark and evil Druids live in this realm as well, conducting evil rituals and black magic.
The Second Layer is known as Erebus, and shares the Plane's name. It is home to the mighty Titans and their King, Cronus. The entire Layer is said to be laid out like the Medditarean Sea on some backwater Prime world called Terra. The sea itself is controled by Oceanus, unpredictively suffers intence thunder storms, and is populated by huge, terrififying sea monsters, like Scylla the Aquatic Hydra. The land itself is populated by the survants of the Titans, and isolated human villages and Kingdoms, which are periodically destroyed by landbound monsters, since their are no heroes to save them here.
The Third Layer is called Nightmare, and is well-named. The layer itself consists of small islands of grass hovering miles above an enormious black hole. The layer's most terrifying feature is that it forms corpes of visitors, which materialize seemingly out of nowhere, and appear like they died a horrible death, with fear-laced expressions permanently plastered opon their features.
No power has a realm in Nightmare, and the only inhabidants besides the Malevoii are undead, both corporeal and non.
Originally posted by mrgoat
I think Bizarro Limbo should be exactly the same as the regular one. Chaos doesn't have an opposite, having a definite opposite at any given time would be a lawful trait, even if it changes a lot. "Never having a pattern" is in itself, a pattern.
I think that Bizzarro Limbo should look exactly like the regular one, but in actuality each individual atomos of elemental material behaves in a perfectly lawful way. Basically it is very similar to what Chaos Theory says about apparent chaos coming out of complex systems following defined laws of interaction. Perhaps there is even an exotic type of quintessence that can be influenced through thought particles exuded by specially trained Axiomats (a guild found among the Githzerai, a race with a rigid and infallible caste system. They behave in such unity with the rest of there race it is suspected they may not even have free will (in fact they will tell you free will is not even possible in such an orderly multiverse) but I digress) to interact with the elements present in the place and duplicate the effects of what is seen in our multiverse.
I think that Bizzarro Limbo should look exactly like the regular one, but in actuality each individual atomos of elemental material behaves in a perfectly lawful way. Basically it is very similar to what Chaos Theory says about apparent chaos coming out of complex systems following defined laws of interaction.
Exactly. In truth, there is no such thing, force, or concept as "chaos". Chaos itself can be argued conclusively against, especially from a deterministic standpoint. (Which itself is hard to argue against, since we've already observed that laws govern the behavior of things) Extremely complex law is indistinguishable from chaos, just as extrememly complex lawful creatures are indistiguishable from chaotic ones. Empirical evidence as well as theoretical research seems to suggest that the extremes of any concept always meet and become one as the degree of extremity approaches infinity.
Chaos is merely law misunderstood. The only true possible definition of chaos is total apathy towards law and chaos, which makes chaos inherently neutral, or lawful, if you think chaos insists on always being apathetic towards such matters. And if chaos is always neutral, that is a lawful aspect. Chaos is, therefore, inherently a lawful force. Primus must love this stuff.
(Once I've convinced you all of this, I'll move onto proving that chaos is the only truth)
Law is rigidness, where only a very few set possibilities imposed opon by an intelligence, such as a ruler like a King, or another ruling body. Everything is predictable. Its Law untainted by indiviuality, like on the Prime, where law and Chaos are intertwined so much they appear nearly the same philochifically speaking.
However, The Bizzaro Mechanus and Limbo are exact opposites of their "Official" Planescape counterparts, but still are opposites of their "Official" Planescape counterparts. For instance, on the "Real" Great Wheel, Mechanus is perfectly lawful, the ideal Lawfulness if you will, as Limbo is perfectly Chaotic. In the Bizzaro Multiverse, Mechanus is the Plane of Lawful Chaos, while Limbo is the plane of Chaotic Law. Mr.Goat's definition in his post above this one is correct, for the Bizzaro versions of Law and Chaos.
Now, Bizzaro Outlands on the otherhand, the realm of the Exemplar race known as the Kameral, is the absence of all other alignments, rather than the combination of all. Any idea on what the Bizzaro Outlands would be like?
(I know Mr.Goat's gonna grill me for this)Not really, Chaos as defined in Planescape is complete senselessness, lacking any purpose whatsoever, its also complete randomness, without any restaint. Its social chaos as well, complete anarchy. Nothing is predictable, except the unpredictable.
Yeah. (You know, I'm not nearly such a big jerk in real life.) Anyway, I'm not gonna grill you too much, but the fact that chaos is defined, makes it lawful. If it's always unpredictable, well, that sounds an awful lot like a definite order to me. It may only have one rule, but it sure does follow it all the time!
Mr.Goat's definition in his post above this one is correct, for the Bizzaro versions of Law and Chaos.
Crap. He's figured out that I'm from the bizarro multiverse. This will not look good on my bizarro record.
Let's see, the regular outlands are mostly wilderness, mostly natural areas. Maybe the bizarro outlands should be made mostly of constructed things, but not really layed out with any thought given to order. (Not to say senselessly, just kinda apathetically). You could have fields of mirrors, hills of household pots and pans, a lake filled with oil and horseshoes, thin towers of stacked gears instead of trees, kind of like a benign junkyard where the stuff isn't really rusted or broken, just strewn about in a weird fascimile of the ordinary outlands. Buckets of nails and mounds of bricks might be commonplace here, as might be industrial-sized blocks of ice, racks upon racks of regular weapons just sitting and waiting, and fleets of working carts, if someone would just bring a horse along.
Just as the outlands aren't really malicious, neither would the bizarro version be. Maybe, near the gatetowns, instead of becoming more like the adjacent planes, the bizarro outlands would just stay exactly the same, or take on a character more opposed to those planes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.Goat said: Yeah. (You know, I'm not nearly such a big jerk in real life.) Anyway, I'm not gonna grill you too much, but the fact that chaos is defined, makes it lawful. If it's always unpredictable, well, that sounds an awful lot like a definite order to me. It may only have one rule, but it sure does follow it all the time!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, its ironic isn't it, in order to be chaotic, chaos has to, as in must, be chaotic. I wonder what a Slaad would think if someone said that to him(probably would look at the person funny for a second, and then eat them in all likelyhood).
It probably causes Rogue Slaad to arise more than any other factor, when they realize even Chaos follows some law defining it.
So, your from the Bizzarro Multiverse Mr.Goat, does that mean that those rumors that the void surrounding Sigil actually leads to the bowl-shaped Bizzarro Sigil?
Now onto the topic of the Bizzarro Outlands: Yeah, since Bizzarro Neutrality is the absence of all other alignments, the Bizzarro Outlands probably would be unlike any other Outer Plane, good suggestion Mr.Goat.
Now, Bizzarro Acheron, should that be the Plane of Peace and Pacifism?
Originally posted by mrgoat
If it's always unpredictable, well, that sounds an awful lot like a definite order to me.
Not to me. It sounds like the opposite of order to me. Whatchamacallit: disorder. Or chaos.
Criticizing inconsistency for being consistent is a valid paradox. But we're not talking about consistency and inconsistency here; we're talking about law and chaos. Chaos is allowed to be consistent; that doesn't make it lawful, as long as it's consistently lawless.
I'm boring myself!
Now that we've got that all cleared up, what about Bizzarro Acheron, should it be the plane of Peace and Pacifism, or what would you have Acheron be like(Properties, appearence etc.)
Thanks for the comments on Mechanus. Now that I think about it, I should have included something about them eternally trying to cram more and more upgraded parts to all their systems so that even if someone figured it out at one point, in 5 minutes it would be a virtually completely different program. And of course, these upgrades (even though the systems were supposed to be "perfect" to start with) would usually be poorly planned and coordinated so that other systems not upgraded the same way or at the same time become even less compatible which causes even more crashes and shorts. Oh well.
I'm taking kind of a light-hearted approach to these so far, and I probably could with the rest too. However, with just a little tweaking, even my satirical version of Mechanus could be made into a genuinely menacing, dangerous place, with mostly just a change in tone. If you wanted, it could seem almost as threatening to Planewalkers as mainstream Abyss does. A world in which you don't know if a single mispronounced or misused word will cause one of the indigenous lifeforms to freeze up, drop dead, attack in a berserker rage, or go off like a small bomb, would be one of the least secure places on the planes.
Oh, I have to side with Rip and Geddon. Just because you apply a word to something doesn't mean that thing is in any way constrained or truly defined by that word. Kind of like how darkness or blackness isn't really a color, and void isn't really a "thing." I don't think that defining the word "chaos" then makes chaos defined, constrained, or patterned, it just tells us to use our minds to think of something undefined/without pattern, which is probably better equipped with dealing with what something chaotic is than our language.
Mr. Goat did hint on something earlier that I'll bring up here though (kind of as an aside). It's the idea that nothing is truly chaotic, just highly complex. I can't say whether or not this is definitely true (especially within the Planescape universe), however, I always felt that the Modrons should believe this to be true. This would mean that a Monodrone walking into Limbo wouldn't get all trippy and weirded out like they seem to when they encounter chaotic stuff in the books. Rather, it should attempt to analyze it, fail, and conclude that the laws governing it are too complex for it to understand and relay this on to its superiors, who in turn will keep relaying it on all the way up to Primus is they have to. In any case, the canonical Modrons often seem to be more about artificial law and order than natural law and order, which is something I don't quite agree with. If the Modrons feel compelled to force law onto the multiverse, then they are basically admitting that chaos really does exist and is quite prevalent.
In fact, the Xiaosects make the claim that everything is chaos, the supposed order of the planes is merely a temporary manifestation.
Even in our universe, of course we'll always be inclined to see chaos as an illusion, but that is in part due to the human mind's need to seek patterns. But think of it this way--if we have free will, we by our choices disturb the systems around us. We make them random to some extent by our movements. If we have free will then there is chaos.
Also, quantum theory seems to leave room for chaos...
Oh, and your desciption of Bizzarro Mechanus would indeed be extremely hazardious to anyone, just imagine being trapped inside of a computer universe where everything malfunctions in some way, and you never know what will trigger those malfunctions. Damn scary!
Sciborg: Good, well-thought out response. Just remember that reality and Planescape are too different things. I like Quantum Theory, its interesting and fascinating, but I don't hold it as scientific fact, or believe in it. But who knows.
Bizzarro River Styx, The River Memoria
Thereout all the Good Lower Planes, the golden waters of the blessed River Memoria flow. The River's waters have the blessed power of restoring lost memories, and healing insanity and other sicknesses of the mind. It also washes away all diseases, and helps in the healing process.
Bizzarro River Oceanus:
The River Oceanus is really an infinite extension of the Titan God Oceanus' realm. Its a terrible river, its water as salty and cold as its master. The River starts in Oceanus' realm in Erebus(Bizzarro Arborea), and flows threw every Upper Plane, until spilling into Mt.Woe's(Bizzarro Mt.Celestia) Sea of Blood.
How about this, a Bizzarro Beastlands...
The Haunted Lands...A Chaotic Neutral Evil plane
On the Prime, extinctions happen quite often. Often, up to a thousand species can die each day. Sometimes this is merely natural selection, but other times, this creatures are brutally hunted to extinction by sentient races.
When an animal dies naturally, either threw sickness or by predation, normally its soul goes to the Inner Planes to dwell with its corisponding Animal Lord, or it becomes an Animental. The creatures that die threw cruelty, and other unnatural means however, end up here.
The Haunted Lands is a nightmarish plane. The enviriment looks like a twisted, surreal version of a normal Prime habitat. Everything has a tenge of anger, and what some would call...hatred.
The sprits of animals killed unnaturally lurk threwout this Plane, in the form of Nightmare beasts, creatures that look like larger, maleviolet versions of their former selves.
Moreover, the Nightmare Beasts are ruled over by a Nightmare Lord, a twisted, hate-filled version of the Inner Planar Animal lords.
But we're not talking about consistency and inconsistency here; we're talking about law and chaos. Chaos is allowed to be consistent; that doesn't make it lawful, as long as it's consistently lawless.
But you're wrong. We *are* talking about consistency and inconsistency. Inconsistency is the hallmark of chaos. In D&D, something is called "chaotic" because it doesn't follow any sort of order. "Chaotic" in D&D means inconsistent. Acting along established lines of order is what defines something as "lawful". So yeah, you're entirely wrong and your argument is bunk.
Originally posted by mrgoat
But you're wrong. We *are* talking about consistency and inconsistency. Inconsistency is the hallmark of chaos. In D&D, something is called "chaotic" because it doesn't follow any sort of order. "Chaotic" in D&D means inconsistent. Acting along established lines of order is what defines something as "lawful". So yeah, you're entirely wrong and your argument is bunk.
Chaos, as a whole, is certainly inconsistent. This isn't an "established line of order." In fact, it's an established line of disorder.
Its only definition is its lack of definition. Is chaos consistently inconsistent? Isn't that just playing with words in a remarkably pointless way?
It sort of bothers me when people say things like how chaos is really lawful because it's always chaotic, and that's some sort of law that there aren't any laws. Because it's, you know, kinda silly.
If you want, I can go into set theory and explain how the set of "consistency" includes the set of things that are, more or less, consistently inconsistent and also the set of things that are actually consistent, and not just silly playing with words. But that would be boring, and I'm starting to really hate myself right now. My eyes are literally bleeding. Literally! The blood is gushing out of them and all over my shiny metallic-colored keyboard, purely because I have allowed myself to enter a semantic argument that has nothing to do with anything the slightest bit entertaining for anyone.
So, yeah, I'm entirely right *and* my argument is bunk, since the whole debate is bunk.
But I have nothing useful to add about bizarro universes beneath the Outlands.
Lijbmo is very random, however. Randomness is one of the four major slaad lords, the others being entropy, art (colors), and madness.
There should be five.
The Bizzarro Universe discussion is getting alittle stale, so I have a new topic we could discuss, hmm, how about Elsegroups?
For instance, the Inner Planes are based upon a theme of being the building blocks of the planes, while the Outer are based upon belief, and concepts/forces like good and evil, law and chaos. What other new Elsegroups could there be, if they existed?
So, yeah, I'm entirely right *and* my argument is bunk, since the whole debate is bunk.
See, now that's twice you've been wrong. (But It's nice someone got my point about it all being bunk.) If you keep being wrong like this, you'll have no credibility left at all soon! You can go ahead into set theory and consistency all you want, but I wouldn't bother, since I'm already familiar with what you're going to say. I just like to argue. Most people take a side they know, I just take whatever side other people don't.
Either way, I'm entertained highly.
Man, I'm on a roll here. I post a little troll and the bites just keep coming in!
I don't like to argue, rather, I like to debate. Arguments are a waste of time, now debates, thats constructive. I think your the same Mr.Goat, but I could be wrong.
Regarding my *real* beliefs, I don't particularly like to tell those, suffice to say I think they're opposites, they're the same, and I'm playing devil's advocate. It can be all three.
I think most things, when taken to their utmost extreme, are the same as their opposite taken to it's utmost extreme, or in a few rare cases, at least so indistinguishable as to make the distinction entirely moot. Or maybe that's not what I think. But it sure is likely. Then again, I usually honestly change what I believe to suit the side of the debate I'm in. That's an important point: I usually believe what I'm arguing, at least until I'm done arguing it. Technically, I suppose that means I never troll, except when I do.
So yeah, at least as long as I'm having that debate, I truly believe there's no such thing as chaos, and that law and chaos have no opposites. Just because something's commonly held knowledge doesn't mean it's not suspect and shouldn't be subject to scrutiny. I could argue either way though, and honestly believe whichever side I pick at any given time.
Anyway, any ideas regarding Elsegroups anyone?
Originally posted by mrgoat
Chaos is merely law misunderstood. The only true possible definition of chaos is total apathy towards law and chaos, which makes chaos inherently neutral, or lawful, if you think chaos insists on always being apathetic towards such matters. And if chaos is always neutral, that is a lawful aspect. Chaos is, therefore, inherently a lawful force. Primus must love this stuff.
Your sophistry amuses me. Yet, it remains sophistry. I will present a series of arguments against your proof that chaos is lawful.
You state that chaos is apathetic to chaos, and thus not chaos. Apathy does not terminate existence. Furthermore, if it did, this would not make it lawful.
You state chaos is neutral, and apathetic to chaos, thus it is lawful. However, it is also apathetic to order.
There is a chance you might prove chaos has a lawful aspect. However, it would have but an aspect, and nothing more, of order.
As a fourth argument, if you we accept your semantics, chaos is apparently lawful, which means it is not itself. Thus, chaos is chaotic.
Another argument attacks your semantics themselves. You are debating the chaoticness of chaos, not the actually essence we call chaos. What you argue against is an abstract concept. If chaos were, for some reason, not chaotic, it would still be chaos.
Originally posted by mrgoat
Yeah. (You know, I'm not nearly such a big jerk in real life.) Anyway, I'm not gonna grill you too much, but the fact that chaos is defined, makes it lawful. If it's always unpredictable, well, that sounds an awful lot like a definite order to me. It may only have one rule, but it sure does follow it all the time!
No. I believe I read in one of the source books, if you believe that for a moment, the chaos of Limbo will become predictable. But, when you try to exploit this predictibility, you will be wrong in your predictions.
You state that chaos is apathetic to chaos, and thus not chaos. Apathy does not terminate existence. Furthermore, if it did, this would not make it lawful.
We were debating wether or not chaos conceptually exists, not if it could be terminated. This counter-argument assumes the existence of chaos and goes on to argue that it exists. It's a well-disguised tautology. You can't assume the thing you want to prove as a basis for the proof. Argument dismissed.
You state chaos is neutral, and apathetic to chaos, thus it is lawful. However, it is also apathetic to order.
So? If it's consistently apathetic to order, that's a lawful trait. Apathy is indifference and absence of interest. This counter-argument doesn't address the debate we were having. You're just making a tangential point that supports my argument, and claiming it disproves me. This one can be laid to rest as well.
There is a chance you might prove chaos has a lawful aspect. However, it would have but an aspect, and nothing more, of order.
See, I think you're wrong, for the purposes of this debate. This time, what you've done is just dismiss my entire argument, without bothering to debate anything. Essentially, you just said you're right and I'm wrong. Throw down and debate already.
As a fourth argument, if you we accept your semantics, chaos is apparently lawful, which means it is not itself. Thus, chaos is chaotic.
False. You've misrepresented my position. I'm arguing that there is no chaos, that chaos itself is a word in error. It's a useless word, because what it's talking about contradicts itself. Yes, you've done a fine job supporting my argument with this one as well. Proof by contradiction. Assume chaos exists, assume some properties of it, prove that it's in contradiction with itself, ergo: no such thing, or no such thing with those properties. Either way, good job proving my point.
Another argument attacks your semantics themselves. You are debating the chaoticness of chaos, not the actually essence we call chaos. What you argue against is an abstract concept. If chaos were, for some reason, not chaotic, it would still be chaos.
Ok, this one's just dumb. You're just saying that something would still be itself if it lacked every property that defines it as that thing. That's like saying, "You know, even if pandas weren't pandas, they'd still be pandas." Besides, it's just a slippery semantic argument, and doesn't address the actual points I was making. You're just playing with words now. It's a fun passtime, but clearly not a working argument.
No. I believe I read in one of the source books, if you believe that for a moment, the chaos of Limbo will become predictable. But, when you try to exploit this predictibility, you will be wrong in your predictions.
This says nothing about the argument at hand. That's a bit of chaos theory you're working on, and the only point it makes is that complex systems that exceed the boundaries of computability in the observer appear chaotic.
So ah, were you going to make an argument? So far all you've given me are a bunch of fallacious arguments, classic blunders in fact, and one point that supports me.
Originally posted by mrgoat
Assume chaos exists, assume some properties of it, prove that it's in contradiction with itself, ergo: no such thing, or no such thing with those properties.
But wouldn't that be the essence of true chaos? Relying on the theorem of (P v ~P -> Q) anything is possible if chaos is impossible but exists anyway.
I've heard a few barmies in the irretrievable wing arguing whether the whole multiverse is just a barmy blip of chaos matter in a soup so big that it makes limbo look like just some pile o' blek.
Why don't you go comment on the PS3E feats instead? :D
We were debating wether or not chaos conceptually exists, not if it could be terminated. This counter-argument assumes the existence of chaos and goes on to argue that it exists. It's a well-disguised tautology. You can't assume the thing you want to prove as a basis for the proof. Argument dismissed.
You previously stated that chaos is completely apathetic to law and chaos, and therefore neutral. Using this definition, chaos is not chaos. Such a thing cannot exist. As you recently posted, one cannot assume the thing one intends to prove.
So? If it's consistently apathetic to order, that's a lawful trait. Apathy is indifference and absence of interest. This counter-argument doesn't address the debate we were having. You're just making a tangential point that supports my argument, and claiming it disproves me. This one can be laid to rest as well.
I misunderstood your point here at first, but I comprehend it now. When I first posted that point, I thought you meant the apathy toward law caused chaos, but I now see it is because you say chaos is apathetic to everything. However, chaos is not predictable, even in these terms. It occasionally does concern itself with law, the color green, neutrality, good, evil, potatoes, people named Fred, or itself.
See, I think you're wrong, for the purposes of this debate. This time, what you've done is just dismiss my entire argument, without bothering to debate anything. Essentially, you just said you're right and I'm wrong. Throw down and debate already.
I don't consider this argument addressed. I state that if chaos has a single lawful aspect, it is still chaos. A good-aligned person who committed one evil deed is most likely still a good-aligned person.
False. You've misrepresented my position. I'm arguing that there is no chaos, that chaos itself is a word in error. It's a useless word, because what it's talking about contradicts itself. Yes, you've done a fine job supporting my argument with this one as well. Proof by contradiction. Assume chaos exists, assume some properties of it, prove that it's in contradiction with itself, ergo: no such thing, or no such thing with those properties. Either way, good job proving my point.
An element of chaos is its constant contradiction to what is predicted of it and what is understood about it. Something chaotic should contradict itself and exist anyway.
Ok, this one's just dumb. You're just saying that something would still be itself if it lacked every property that defines it as that thing. That's like saying, "You know, even if pandas weren't pandas, they'd still be pandas." Besides, it's just a slippery semantic argument, and doesn't address the actual points I was making. You're just playing with words now. It's a fun passtime, but clearly not a working argument.
You frequently say I don't address the actual argument. What I am arguing against is a sentence that reads "Chaos is, therefore, inherently a lawful force." A simple proof that chaos is not inherently a lawful force is as follows: Chaos is the opposite of law. The opposite force of law is not a lawful force. Therefore, chaos is not a lawful force. Equating chaos with law is an integral part of your deduction that cannot be denied, and it does not stand.
This says nothing about the argument at hand. That's a bit of chaos theory you're working on, and the only point it makes is that complex systems that exceed the boundaries of computability in the observer appear chaotic.
This was more of a separate statement (and thus, in a different post). I merely desired to demonstrate how the sourcebooks deal with the illusory predictablility of chaos.
A simple proof that chaos is not inherently a lawful force is as follows: Chaos is the opposite of law.
Damn, I knew someone would stumble on this one eventually. I'm suprised it took someone this long to disprove my argument, really. I guess I'm vanquished!
Also I found that little barmy idea some of those people had that you spoke of Sildatorak alittle interesting, is the multiverse, or at least the Outer Planes, in reality just chaos-stuff molded by the Gods?
Are you being sarcastic or do you mean that? You can never be to sure these days.
Can't I be both?
Originally posted by RandomPrecision
Living in a place not contained by the multiverse is analogous to living in the 51st state of the US.
Actually, I would say it is analagous to living "behind space" (i.e. lying on an axis that we have not defined in our categorization of the multiverse). Which makes me want to needlessly pimp In Flames.
Beckoning silent from a sphere behind space
Through twisted ruins of uncompleted dreams
Silent towers reaching for the moon
Clawing at the skies - they're gonna pull it down
It seems that some people here beleive that words contained in a language are static in thier meaning, however, this only the case in a 'Dead Language'(such as Latin, or Greek), in a 'Living Language' (i.e. one that is in current use, such as English, Spanish, German, etc.) this is not the case. Languages that are in use, evolve. Therefore words and thier meanings can and do change. As an example, let us look at this:
In the past the word for apron was actually napron, when written one would us 'a napron' until this evolved into 'an apron'. I would not make any further comparisons, save that, as I remember, when in grammer school the word 'ain't' was not in the english language dictionary as a word, yet today it is. These are not the only instances of this kind of linguistic evolution, in our own English Language, but I am sure you see my point. Once a language becomes a 'Dead Language' (i.e. one in which a common populace no longer uses it), a words meanings remain the same from then on. As long as there are people speaking a language the forms of speech and word meanings will vary though time.
This being said I would like to defend those of you who would use creative liscence to describe things not yet covered by our language. In this debate some would include all times and planes into a one-word description such as universe, or multiverse, and even omniverse. I see the difference in these terms, and agree that there is a need to separate them in thier meanings. I see the 'Universe' as a Prime Material Plane. There could be alternate Universes and parallel universes etc. I see the Multiverse as the sum of all known realms and planes, and Omniverse as the sum of all of reality, on all levels both known and unknown. The distinction of these words, perhaps is not needed in our 'Real World' views, however in the fantasy RPG's there is a difference when discussions like this takes place. After all if a major villian in my game threatens to destroy the universe, that does not neccessarily mean that all of reality is threatened, just the universe that that individual is familiar with.
I hope this helps some.
Sincerly,
Amathar
1. Everything that exists is the multiverse. (Reversed definition of universe)
2. If something is part of everything that exists, it is part of the multiverse. (Transitive Property, 1)
3. If something exists, it is part of everything that exists. (Premise)
4. Object X is not part of the multiverse. (Premise from question)
5. Object X is not part of everything that exists. (Modus tollens from 4 and 2)
6. Object X does not exist. (Modus tollens from 5 and 3)
Conclusion: If something is not part of the multiverse, it cannot exist.
If you cannot abide by this deduction, inform me which statement you disagree with.
Instead, you have argued about the meaning of the word universe/multiverse/omniverse, the nature of chaos, spent far too much effort in debates that are not only unstimulating but completely mindless... and all of this occurred when the the intent of the original question was obviously clear.
The words don't matter. If I wish to call my Prime world a universe I sure as hell can. Noone can stop me. If I want to call this television remote Universal, despite its inability to control every TV in the universe, who shall stop me? If i want to call all of the various planes of existence Fnordtastic Funland! and anything not a part of said planes Anti-Funzilla Land that does not negate the question "What actually exists in Anti-Funzilla Land". We all know what the person meant by "outside of the multiverse", so why must this debate to prove who has the best grasp of theorums and proofs continue? This entire thread has merely degenerated into an intellectual
match of who can prove their point, completely negating its purpose to explain a FANTASY ROLEPLAYING GAME!Here we are, having a perfectly good off-topic discussion, and in comes you, this exemplar of law to tell us we shouldn't be discussing the building blocks of discussion (words and their meanings, in case you were unfamiliar with what I'm talking about)? You are aware that the foundation of any discussion is agreeing on the definitions of the terms to be used, aren't you? Without discussions like this one, we're all just
in the wind on this topic, and can do nothing more.You biter.
Sheesh. You're acting like discussions don't naturally go off on tangents. "On topic" is a fallacy. Most threads go off topic. If they didn't, we'd miss the majority of interesting things on this board.
And just because you thought it was idiotic doesn't mean we didn't have fun with it. So quit peeing in our sandbox.
Lets ponder my question inside the PLANESCAPE definition of the word Multiverse. Regardless if the word is accurate or not. If it isn't, just pretend it is.
Originally posted by Primus, the One and Prime Let me just say, this is the most off topic and randomly idiotic thread I've ever seen. We all understood the question. What is there outside of the usual Great Wheel cosmology? What resides outside of the Inner, Outer, Prime, Transitive system that we regard as the core of the planescape "multiverse"? Is the Wheel the entirety of everything or is it merely a single portion of a much greater existence?
And I answered the question. This was one of the most off topic and randomly idiotic replies I've seen in this thread. [EDIT: And this thread has the most views of any thread on this forums since Shemeska's thread about Planewalker's Sigil guide being up, and may pull ahead in the near future.] What exists outside of everything that exists? Nothing.
Instead, you have argued about the meaning of the word universe/multiverse/omniverse, the nature of chaos, spent far too much effort in debates that are not only unstimulating but completely mindless... and all of this occurred when the the intent of the original question was obviously clear.
They really aren't mindless, I assume you just don't understand them.
The words don't matter. If I wish to call my Prime world a universe I sure as hell can. Noone can stop me. If I want to call this television remote Universal, despite its inability to control every TV in the universe, who shall stop me? If i want to call all of the various planes of existence Fnordtastic Funland! and anything not a part of said planes Anti-Funzilla Land that does not negate the question "What actually exists in Anti-Funzilla Land".
You could say these things, you'd just be wrong.
We all know what the person meant by "outside of the multiverse", so why must this debate to prove who has the best grasp of theorums and proofs continue? This entire thread has merely degenerated into an intellectual
Yes, I know exactly what the question meant. However, the question is based on a logical fallacy that comes from misunderstanding what the multiverse is.
Think of it in planescape terms. There are inner planes in the ethereal. Paraelemental and quasielemental planes exist between the basic elemental planes and the energy planes. From these and ether come the demiplanes and the prime material planes. Nothing yet exists outside of the ethereal, and the planes floating around in its many dimensions. Now, thought and belief from the inhabitants of the prime material, demiplanes, ethereal, wherever create the astral plane and the wheel of outer planes that exist in it. The outer planes are made of thought and belief. Thought and belief don't create anything that they don't create, so there are no more astral/outer planes. Additionally, the ethereal plane doesn't have anything "outside of it". The ethereal and astral planes contain every inner, outer, prime material, and demiplane, and nothing exists outside of the two "transitive" planes.
I see that despite arguments against, no one specified which statement in my proof they contested. Thus, I consider the argument won, in my favor.
There is an outside, and its called the Far Realm...
Mhahahahah!
For all things (A) let's let property P be "exists" and Q be "outside the universe". Q implies ~P. P implies ~Q. You can't have it both ways. Sorry, but math is fundamentally the same, far realm or not.
It's what one might call a mutually exclusive relationship. If you disagree again, go back to the beginning of the thread, and read it all again. If you get back to this post and still can't see I'm right, go back to the beginning of the thread and read it all again. We've already hashed this one out.
Multiverse, functionally, means "Universe composed of multiple parts".
A universe can be a multiverse or a monoverse. Either way, it not only contains all known and true verses, it contains alternative verses and possible verses and, if such a thing exists, impossible verses.
Therefor, to say 'multiverse' is to say 'universe'.
Now, there IS the issue of linguistic degradation. The term "Alternative Universe", taken at face value, is a fallacy. However, for argument, it functionally means 'alternate verse'. While it's annoying to see, it's not that big a deal.
Assume, also, that anyone saying "Outside the Universe" is actually saying "Outside of the known Universe". Also annoying, but get over it.
Far Realms are outside of the known universe, but they are within the universe.
But people like saying fewer words.
Originally posted by RandomPrecision
From these and ether come the demiplanes and the prime material planes
sorry for being offtopic...
- are there really multiple (=pural!) PRIME material planes, or should there be multiple material planes where only one is considered "PRIME"?
- if so, what makes one plane (of an infinite number of planes) being "the PRIME"?
btw: i agree with RandomPrecision:
this discussion really has gone way offtopic. surely we can continue to nit-pick and play around with words, but i´m sure everyone knows the MEANING of the question that started this thread. little while after the discussion degenerated into nitpicking it lost it´s charm, so let´s please get back to the topic...
tauster
Originally posted by Incenjucar
Multiverse, functionally, means "Universe composed of multiple parts".
Multiverse and universe have the same meaning. One of them is supposed to sound more absolute than the other.
A universe can be a multiverse or a monoverse. Either way, it not only contains all known and true verses, it contains alternative verses and possible verses and, if such a thing exists, impossible verses.
You have not defined verse. Thus, your argument is meaningless. The word "universe" comes from the Latin "universus", meaning entire, or whole. That came from "uni", meaning one, and "versus", meaning turned toward, the past participle of vertere, to turn. Universe literally means, "turning one". Multiverse could mean "multiple ones who turn", referring to multiple universes, but "verse" by itself means nothing to me.
Now, there IS the issue of linguistic degradation. The term "Alternative Universe", taken at face value, is a fallacy. However, for argument, it functionally means 'alternate verse'. While it's annoying to see, it's not that big a deal.
Again, the lack of definition for the word "verse" hinders your argument.
Assume, also, that anyone saying "Outside the Universe" is actually saying "Outside of the known Universe". Also annoying, but get over it.
We know what creates the planescape universe. There are inner planes in the ethereal, which create prime material and demiplanes, and the inhabitants of the planes create the astral and outer planes. Check everything again: Do the inner planes create something besides what the inner planes create? No. Does the thought and belief of planescape inhabitants create something besides what it creates? No.
Far Realms are outside of the known universe, but they are within the universe.
Far Realms are based on a logical fallacy. I don't use them. If I want a unique destination in planescape, I can use somewhere in the outer planes (the Abyss is infinite, what more could you want?), demiplanes in the ethereal, new adventures, like dreamscapes and whatnot, or something. Planescape is a very large campaign setting, and I have never been so bored with it as to defy logic and put my own realms into it.
Originally posted by tauster
- are there really multiple (=pural!) PRIME material planes, or should there be multiple material planes where only one is considered "PRIME"?
Forgotten Realms, Athas, Dragonlance, [INSERT NAME OF GREYHAWK WORLD HERE], maybe Mystara, or something like that. I'm quite sure they are all separate planes.
- if so, what makes one plane (of an infinite number of planes) being "the PRIME"?
Access to the ethereal and astral planes.
are there really multiple (=pural!) PRIME material planes, or should there be multiple material planes where only one is considered "PRIME"?
In 2e, there was one prime material plane, which had prime worlds sitting in crystal spheres, which were in turn sitting in something called the "pholstigon", though I probably butchered the spelling. In 3e, It's anyone's guess, since it was kinda designed so that everyone could make up their own cosmology, but the core one AFAIK assumes that there's one prime world (take your pick), and one prime material plane per cosmology, and you have to go through, I dunno, the plane of stupid to get to other cosmologies.
Originally posted by RandomPrecision
1. Everything that exists is the multiverse. (Reversed definition of universe)
2. If something is part of everything that exists, it is part of the multiverse. (Transitive Property, 1)
3. If something exists, it is part of everything that exists. (Premise)
4. Object X is not part of the multiverse. (Premise from question)
5. Object X is not part of everything that exists. (Modus tollens from 4 and 2)
6. Object X does not exist. (Modus tollens from 5 and 3)
Conclusion: If something is not part of the multiverse, it cannot exist.
If you cannot abide by this deduction, inform me which statement you disagree with.
Your logic is spot on, but I'd disagree with 1 because I have a different definition of multiverse. And don't just go and say I'm wrong, the American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd edition) supports my view of the universe as being contained entirely within spacial dimensions.
All matter and energy, including Earth, the galaxies, and all the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
(emphasis mine)
Applied to a fantasy world in which there are non-spacial dimensions (there is a pretty interesting essay about this possibility on the Mimir someplace) it is quite possible for there to be things beyond the universe (and also the multiverse if we extend this argument a little farther) if we don't just slap a 3 word definition on universe.
I see that despite arguments against, no one specified which statement in my proof they contested. Thus, I consider the argument won, in my favor.
Well, if you'd been paying attention you would know that at least one person (namely me) disagrees with your first premise. The word universe does not necessarily include absolutely everything that is. I use the word as it is generally used in science. You use the one that could be considered either for laymen or archaic (or maybe for certain english majors). Saying that the scientific idea is out and out wrong is pretty conceited on your part, especially since it comprises a large body of people all using the word pretty much the same way and agreeing on its meaning, and words only have meaning through consensus. And you could actually probably add nearly the entire world's population of comic book geeks and science fiction fans to the list of people that would understand and more or less agree with that version as well. You could try and argue that the word "homophobe" has no real meaning because its greek/latin roots point to it meaning "fear of sameness" or "fear of man", but just about everyone in the United States knows that the word really means, and it has its meaning because that's what they believe it to mean.
Multiverse and universe have the same meaning. One of them is supposed to sound more absolute than the other.
In Planescape I'm pretty sure they actually mean different things. The actual word "universe" doesn't seem to pop up that often, but they seem to believe there are a plurality of them, all contained within the "multiverse." It really doesn't seem that hard to understand. I would actually figure that each Plane is counted as a separate universe, but I don't think that is explicitly stated in any of the books, or if it is, I wouldn't really know which one off the top of my head.
You have not defined verse. Thus, your argument is meaningless. The word "universe" comes from the Latin "universus", meaning entire, or whole. That came from "uni", meaning one, and "versus", meaning turned toward, the past participle of vertere, to turn. Universe literally means, "turning one". Multiverse could mean "multiple ones who turn", referring to multiple universes, but "verse" by itself means nothing to me.
Does he/she (sorry, not sure on your gender Incenjucar) really need to do that? Incenjucar is apparently referring to some sort of realm to which prefixes such as multi, omni, uni, mono, etc can be applied. I dunno. The basic idea seemed fairly clear to me.
We know what creates the planescape universe. There are inner planes in the ethereal,
How do you know they're really "in" the ethereal? Just because that's the usual way things are presented or drawn doesn't make it true. The "Great Wheel" doesn't mean that all the planes actually have a physically circular distribution, that's just how they're traditionally interpreted.
bwhich create prime material and demiplanes,
Hey, something I agree with.
and the inhabitants of the planes create the astral and outer planes.
I don't actually remember this part. If someone could reference a page number of something, I'd like to read up on it, since the relationship of the outer to the prime seems a little fuzzy to me. I don't know if the Outer arise from the Prime, like Random Precision says, or if the Prime is infused with belief and the like from the Outer planes. Actually, my basic understanding is that the Blood War, for example, has been going on since before Primes existed, or at least before they started dying, which would mean that the Outer Planes would kind of have to exist independent of sentient thought on the Prime Material (not necessarily older than the Prime itself; it could have just been uninhabited for billions and billions of years).
Check everything again: Do the inner planes create something besides what the inner planes create? No.
Um, so? What's your point? The Inner Planes don't create anything they don't create. Gee, how surprising.
Does the thought and belief of planescape inhabitants create something besides what it creates? No.
Again, I really don't understand what this has to do with the argument at hand. The Inner Planes help form the Prime. And? They might form something else too, or there might be something that exists completely independantly from them. This holds with your view that the Outer Planes are created by the Prime Material. Even if that's true, that doesn't exclude the possibility of something else besides the Outer Planes existing, or something completely independent of the Prime existing. Also, following the trend that seems to form in your view of the multiverse, if the Prime comes from the Inner, and the Outer come from the Prime, then there could very well be some other tier of existence that arises from the Outer.
Far Realms are based on a logical fallacy.
What logical fallacy? They seem to work just fine for me. As presented, they are just something that is not a part of the Inner, Ethereal, Prime Material, Astral, or Outer Planes. That doesn't mean they aren't "logical." I can't see any reason why "logically" the aforementioned group of planes have to be all that exists. What about something like Plato's realm of ideas? That doesn't really seem to fit anywhere on the Outer Planes. The Outer Planes are far too physical for it to really work, and it obviously can't be part of the Prime Material or the Inner, and I really don't see how it would fit in the Astral or the Ethereal.
If I want a unique destination in planescape, I can use somewhere in the outer planes (the Abyss is infinite, what more could you want?), demiplanes in the ethereal, new adventures, like dreamscapes and whatnot, or something. Planescape is a very large campaign setting, and I have never been so bored with it as to defy logic and put my own realms into it.
I still don't see where the only "logical" explanation is that nothing could possibly exist aside from the 5 known planar groupings. As for not being bored with it, I think it is kind of presumptuous to think that some people who might be interested in other, unknown things are "bored" with it. There are plenty of roleplayers out there who have never gotten "bored" with only a single prime material world to deal with and never go on extended planar or dimension hopping trips. How many Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance campaigns have never left their own world. Quite a few, I imagine. And that's just within D&D. There are plenty of other RPG systems out there people enjoy for years on end without getting "bored" with their single world and having to go jump through alternate realities or dimensions or whatever. That's all just personal preference.
Originally posted by Sildatorak Your logic is spot on, but I'd disagree with 1 because I have a different definition of multiverse. And don't just go and say I'm wrong, the American Heritage College Dictionary (3rd edition) supports my view of the universe as being contained entirely within spacial dimensions.
I said multiverse. No English dictionary contains a definition of multiverse.
Additionally, my Merriam-Webster's Dictionary says
the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated
"Everything that exists" is an easier way to state things. Additionally, what are these non-spatial dimensions you refer to? Things that exist in time alone?
Originally posted by IncenjucarTo clarify, verse, in this regards, is a cosmology structure, such as the inner to outer structure we know of.
Originally posted by IncenjucarA universe can be a multiverse or a monoverse. Either way, it not only contains all known and true verses, it contains alternative verses and possible verses and, if such a thing exists, impossible verses.
How can a monoverse exist, according to your definitions? If only one "verse" exists, there must be an antithesis to it, which, as I gather from your explanations, must also be included. "Monoverse" is a seemingly contradictory statement. Mono and uni are both prefixes meaning 'one'. Do you intend for these to be the same thing?
Originally posted by Freefall
Well, if you'd been paying attention you would know that at least one person (namely me) disagrees with your first premise.
I wasn't aware; you didn't post a reply to my proof, until now.
The word universe does not necessarily include absolutely everything that is. I use the word as it is generally used in science.
These two sentences contradict each other.
You use the one that could be considered either for laymen or archaic (or maybe for certain english majors). Saying that the scientific idea is out and out wrong is pretty conceited on your part, especially since it comprises a large body of people all using the word pretty much the same way and agreeing on its meaning, and words only have meaning through consensus. And you could actually probably add nearly the entire world's population of comic book geeks and science fiction fans to the list of people that would understand and more or less agree with that version as well. You could try and argue that the word "homophobe" has no real meaning because its greek/latin roots point to it meaning "fear of sameness" or "fear of man", but just about everyone in the United States knows that the word really means, and it has its meaning because that's what they believe it to mean.
I would compare this argument to someone asking about homophobes who were not afraid of homosexuals.
In Planescape I'm pretty sure they actually mean different things. The actual word "universe" doesn't seem to pop up that often, but they seem to believe there are a plurality of them, all contained within the "multiverse." It really doesn't seem that hard to understand. I would actually figure that each Plane is counted as a separate universe, but I don't think that is explicitly stated in any of the books, or if it is, I wouldn't really know which one off the top of my head.
I don't recall the word 'universe' being used at all. Multiverse sounds larger, doesn't it? Thus, it seemed appropriate for the complex universe introduced in Planescape. Everything that exists defines the universe/multiverse/omniverse/polyverse/monoverse, whatever you want to call it. Universe is the word that means, "everything, and by that, everything". More than that is impossible.
Does he/she (sorry, not sure on your gender Incenjucar) really need to do that? Incenjucar is apparently referring to some sort of realm to which prefixes such as multi, omni, uni, mono, etc can be applied. I dunno. The basic idea seemed fairly clear to me.
Yes, that is necessary. Arguing with undefined premises and/or unbound variables is a logical fallacy. Consider your reaction if I said I was correct because three snazzgles equal four bigkrawps.
How do you know they're really "in" the ethereal? Just because that's the usual way things are presented or drawn doesn't make it true. The "Great Wheel" doesn't mean that all the planes actually have a physically circular distribution, that's just how they're traditionally interpreted.How do I know? A Guide to the Ethereal Plane, [A DM Guide to the Planes[/u], The Inner Planes, and other intriguing works of literature I own.I don't actually remember this part. If someone could reference a page number of something...
A Guide to the Astral Plane, page 5. "A place solely of the mind, everything there is a construct of the mind, composed only of mental energy.
I don't know of anything that specifically says the outer planes are thought-created, but they are in the astral plane, which is. Also, with gate-towns, belief affecting the planes, the reflection on alignment that the great ring forms, it seems that they are very much linked to thought and belief, even if we cannot find the specific statement.Um, so? What's your point? The Inner Planes don't create anything they don't create. Gee, how surprising.
That's what I am arguing for. Nothing exists outside the universe.Again, I really don't understand what this has to do with the argument at hand. The Inner Planes help form the Prime. And? They might form something else too, or there might be something that exists completely independantly from them.
I thought you just agreed with me, in the previous statment. They don't create things besides what they create. And what they create are the demiplanes and prime material plane(s).This holds with your view that the Outer Planes are created by the Prime Material. Even if that's true, that doesn't exclude the possibility of something else besides the Outer Planes existing, or something completely independent of the Prime existing.
The primes didn't go build another prime material plane, and belief made the outer planes. It didn't make something besides what it made.Also, following the trend that seems to form in your view of the multiverse, if the Prime comes from the Inner, and the Outer come from the Prime, then there could very well be some other tier of existence that arises from the Outer.
No. Belief made the outer planes, which, after their creation, included the belief of outerplanars.What logical fallacy? They seem to work just fine for me. As presented, they are just something that is not a part of the Inner, Ethereal, Prime Material, Astral, or Outer Planes. That doesn't mean they aren't "logical." I can't see any reason why "logically" the aforementioned group of planes have to be all that exists.
Then read my proof again. If Object X does not exist in the universe, Object X does not exist. By the law of the excluded middle, we can say with equal truth value: If Object X exists outside of the universe, Object X does not exist.What about something like Plato's realm of ideas? That doesn't really seem to fit anywhere on the Outer Planes. The Outer Planes are far too physical for it to really work, and it obviously can't be part of the Prime Material or the Inner, and I really don't see how it would fit in the Astral or the Ethereal.
Forms are not compatible with the planescape cosmology. The epitomes of good, evil, law, chaos, and neutrality are on the outer planes. Plato's philosophy requires these absolutes, forms, to be in a place separate from all else, where they manifest themselves in different ways. Aristotle is a more compatible with planescape, if you want to bring in Greek philosophy.I still don't see where the only "logical" explanation is that nothing could possibly exist aside from the 5 known planar groupings. As for not being bored with it, I think it is kind of presumptuous to think that some people who might be interested in other, unknown things are "bored" with it. There are plenty of roleplayers out there who have never gotten "bored" with only a single prime material world to deal with and never go on extended planar or dimension hopping trips. How many Forgotten Realms or Dragonlance campaigns have never left their own world. Quite a few, I imagine. And that's just within D&D. There are plenty of other RPG systems out there people enjoy for years on end without getting "bored" with their single world and having to go jump through alternate realities or dimensions or whatever. That's all just personal preference. [/b]
You reiterate my point, several times. Many campaigns never leave the world on which they began. People don't need to invent new dimensions and worlds to make a planescape campaign interesting. I feel sorrow for those who cannot enjoy Planescape with the worlds and planes given to us already, and must subsequently create "verses" of their own. There may be a sort of wonder, a sort of awe that arises from the discovery and subsequent exploration of a new plane, but for a DM to create boundlessly many planes ad hoc for the party to explore denies the Planescape universe.
These two sentences contradict each other.
You think that generally in science the word universe refers to absolutely everything that the word "is" could be applied to, I take it? I don't really think that that's true. Certainly in astrophysics, which is the actual study of the universe and the things in it, we don't treat the word universe like that, since ideas like "quantum" universe pop up now and again, or just "alternate" or "different" universes. And I still think the point about the comic book readers and sci-fi fans holds up.
I would compare this argument to someone asking about homophobes who were not afraid of homosexuals.
I don't quite understand. You think that someone who is not afraid of homosexuals will give a different definition of the word "homophobe" or "homophobic" than someone who is? I kind of doubt that. Regardless of someones opinions of homosexuals, just about everyone knows what the word "homophobe" means. My point was that the roots of the word don't form the definition that is actually associated with its use. This is analogous to the word "universe" (and many other words, I'm sure) not having its root meaning match identically with its contemporary meaning. You can make analogous arguments with other words whos meaning has changed or has acquired new or additional meaning. The word "holocaust" will always be associated with the attrocities of Nazi Germany, even though it originally had nothing to do with them, and can still technically be used independent of those events (an extreme example, but it was the first to come to mind and I don't feel like digging up others at the moment).
I don't recall the word 'universe' being used at all. Multiverse sounds larger, doesn't it? Thus, it seemed appropriate for the complex universe introduced in Planescape.
I don't either, but using the prefix "multi" seems to suggest their cosmology includes multiple universes. Just because it isn't multi-universe doesn't mean that that's not the obvious intention, they probably just didn't want to use a cumbersome, awkward word. I think that like Incenjucar, they probably figured that we would understand the suffix "verse", i.e. I would tend to assume that most people could figure out what a word like "pyroverse" would refer to if they are familiar with the word unvirse and know what pyro means.
Everything that exists defines the universe/multiverse/omniverse/polyverse/monoverse, whatever you want to call it. Universe is the word that means, "everything, and by that, everything". More than that is impossible.
Universe is a word that can mean "absolutely everything", but in contemporary, real world usage it doesn't always, and in Planescape it definitely doesn't.
Yes, that is necessary. Arguing with undefined premises and/or unbound variables is a logical fallacy. Consider your reaction if I said I was correct because three snazzgles equal four bigkrawps.
That's not quite the same. The term "verse" was already being used as part of the words we were discussing, so we have a basis for at least a general idea of what it refers to. Snazzgles and bigkrawps haven't been used anywhere in this discussion. Now if there were some other discussion where the word "snazzgle" and the word "krawp" had come up, then I would assume that "snazzgles" is the plural of "snazzgle" and "krawps" is the plural of "krawp" and adding the prefix "big" (even though I suppose technically it should be a separate word, or at least hyphenated, since "big" is not actually a suffix) to the word "krawps" refers to a plurality of krawps that are larger than typical krawps.
A Guide to the Astral Plane, page 5. "A place solely of the mind, everything there is a construct of the mind, composed only of mental energy.
I can sight a number of times the Planescape books refer to the Outer Planes as being arranged in a wheel. That doesn't mean that they actually, physically are. Saying that the Inner Planes are "in" the Ethereal is done more for convenience (and maybe out of laziness) than because the Inner Planes are actually bounded, spherical regions arranged in a spherical pattern sitting in an Ethereal soup.
As for the Astral, well, there's more that thinks and has mental energy than just prime material beings. Outer Planar beings have thoughts as well. And why can't the realm of pure thought exist independent of physical creatures? You can have form without thought or spirit (rocks, for example), why couldn't you have mental energy without organic bodies?
I don't know of anything that specifically says the outer planes are thought-created, but they are in the astral plane, which is. Also, with gate-towns, belief affecting the planes, the reflection on alignment that the great ring forms, it seems that they are very much linked to thought and belief, even if we cannot find the specific statement.
Again, I believe you are taking the word "in" far too literally and absolutely. And besides, the Astral Plane is typically viewed as being "in" the inner edge of the Great Wheel, with the Prime resting within the astral and the ethereal within the prime, etc. In 1e they used the idea that the Planes might actually be viewed more as a cup or bowl than a series of concentric circles, with the sides being the outer planes, the bottom being the Outlands, and the astral, prime, ethereal, and inner planes all resting within the bowl. That interpretation works just as well with Planescape cosmology as the "flat" Great Wheel idea, and it most definitely precludes the possibility of the Outer Planes being "in" the Astral.
Also, I never said the Outer Planes weren't linked to thought and belief. I just said that the thought and belief on the Outer Planes might leak through the astral and into the Prime and that that is where prime creatures gain their thought and belief, much like how they gain their bodies from the Inner Planes. And I also pointed out that there are many places in Planescape books, particularly ones discussing the history of the fiends, that make it sound pretty much like it's generally accepted that the fiends (and therefore the planes they live on) predate the existence of Prime Material sentient beings.
Um, so? What's your point? The Inner Planes don't create anything they don't create. Gee, how surprising.
That's what I am arguing for. Nothing exists outside the universe.
Um, who ever said that the Inner Planes and what they create make up the intirety of the universe? In fact, that seems blatantly false given the rest of the Planescape cosmology.
Again, I really don't understand what this has to do with the argument at hand. The Inner Planes help form the Prime. And? They might form something else too, or there might be something that exists completely independantly from them.
I thought you just agreed with me, in the previous statment. They don't create things besides what they create. And what they create are the demiplanes and prime material plane(s).
And... is that all? Are you sure? How do you know they don't create something else besides the demiplanes and prime material? And no, they can't create what they can't create, but that doesn't mean something they can't create doesn't exist. The Inner Planes, being pure physicality, can't create a realm of pure thought, but that doesn't mean one can't exist.
This holds with your view that the Outer Planes are created by the Prime Material. Even if that's true, that doesn't exclude the possibility of something else besides the Outer Planes existing, or something completely independent of the Prime existing.
The primes didn't go build another prime material plane, and belief made the outer planes. It didn't make something besides what it made.
Are you following my argument at all? I never said anything about there being another prime material, or the Outer Planes "making something they didn't make." I said that there could be something besides the Prime, or something besides the Outer. Just because the Prime didn't make something doesn't mean it can't exist, it would just exist independent of the Prime.
And the Outer Planes are belief, they weren't necessarily built by it, as I've already said.
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, following the trend that seems to form in your view of the multiverse, if the Prime comes from the Inner, and the Outer come from the Prime, then there could very well be some other tier of existence that arises from the Outer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Belief made the outer planes, which, after their creation, included the belief of outerplanars.
I don't see how your response has anything to do with my statement. How does the Outer Planes being created by belief prevent them from giving rise to a "higher" reality? All I said in the previous argument was that if the Inner Planes created the Prime Material, and the Prime Material created the Outer, then there's no reason why that trend can't continue and the Outer Planes create something other set of Planes around themselves, and those Planes give rise to yet a higher tier, and those to yet an even higher tier, and so on, ad infinitum. Really, it seems rather fitting to the Planescape cosmology that there would be an infinite number of tiers of reality, rather than just 5.
Then read my proof again. If Object X does not exist in the universe, Object X does not exist. By the law of the excluded middle, we can say with equal truth value: If Object X exists outside of the universe, Object X does not exist.
Your last sentence reads, (omitting a few obstructing words) "if Object X exists, Object X does not exist." Maybe you should write less sloppy proofs. Besides, I myself, and the Planescape setting, and most importantly the starter of this thread, don't seem to accept your definition of the word "universe", not in the context of the primary question of this thread at least.
Forms are not compatible with the planescape cosmology. The epitomes of good, evil, law, chaos, and neutrality are on the outer planes. Plato's philosophy requires these absolutes, forms, to be in a place separate from all else, where they manifest themselves in different ways.
There you go. Plato's realm of perfect ideals doesn't really fit with the Planescape cosmology, thus if you include it in your campaign, it exists outside the Planescape cosmology, i.e. outside the Planescape multiverse. We finally have an answer.
You reiterate my point, several times. Many campaigns never leave the world on which they began. People don't need to invent new dimensions and worlds to make a planescape campaign interesting. I feel sorrow for those who cannot enjoy Planescape with the worlds and planes given to us already, and must subsequently create "verses" of their own. There may be a sort of wonder, a sort of awe that arises from the discovery and subsequent exploration of a new plane, but for a DM to create boundlessly many planes ad hoc for the party to explore denies the Planescape universe.
You aren't understanding the point I just made. I said that many campaigns never even use the Planes or any part of the Planescape cosmology. If they were to take an attitude similar to yours, they would "feel sorry" for everyone who plays planescape or includes planar or dimensional traveling in their campaigns, not being able to make a Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk (or Earth based, in other systems) campaign interesting within itself. But that is just a closed-minded, rather pretentious and elitist point of view. People don't play Planescape because they are necessarily "bored" with Krynn or Toril or Warhammer or Rifts or whatever. They, I'm sure, could still run perfectly enjoyable games within just those single worlds. But at some point maybe they would just like to play a game with extradimensional components just for the experience. Those of us who would like to think about something outside the Great Wheel aren't necessarily "bored" with it, we might just like the idea of at least intellectually wondering about things that might possibly exist outside it. I really don't see what is wrong or contemptible about trying to stretch our imaginations to their utmost.
Universe: All that is. However many or few the verses are, they are all contained within this verse. There is no such thing as 'outside' the universe. No cosmology is free of a universe. There cannot be more than one universe.
Monoverse: This is a theoretical model of a universe that assumes that there is only one contained space, which is the universe itself. In such a model, there can be no demiplanes, alternative verses, or the like. The real universe is often assumed to be a monoverse, but science is increasingly putting that view in to doubt.
Multiverse: This is a theoretical model of a universe that assumes there is one or more verses contained within the universal whole. This can mean exactly one demiplane beyond the universeal whole, or the vast number we see in planescape. Not only is this certain to be the case in D&D, but it may also be true in the real universe we all live in.
The State of the Far Realms: The Far Realms are within the universe, but seemingly is not part of the verses defined in Planescape. No big whup.
Originally posted by Freefall
There you go. Plato's realm of perfect ideals doesn't really fit with the Planescape cosmology, thus if you include it in your campaign, it exists outside the Planescape cosmology, i.e. outside the Planescape multiverse. We finally have an answer.
This apparently pointless debate just produced an on-topic response. Freefall, you've just changed my on-line faction.
Originally posted by Freefall
You think that generally in science the word universe refers to absolutely everything that the word "is" could be applied to, I take it? I don't really think that that's true. Certainly in astrophysics, which is the actual study of the universe and the things in it, we don't treat the word universe like that, since ideas like "quantum" universe pop up now and again, or just "alternate" or "different" universes. And I still think the point about the comic book readers and sci-fi fans holds up.
Sorry. Every dictionary I can find, as well as the astronomers and aeronautical engineers I know are conclusive about the meaning of the word universe, and I think argumentum ad populum is valid for identifying the meaning of a word.
I don't quite understand. You think that someone who is not afraid of homosexuals will give a different definition of the word "homophobe" or "homophobic" than someone who is? I kind of doubt that. Regardless of someones opinions of homosexuals, just about everyone knows what the word "homophobe" means.
Yes, I understood your point. What I indicated was, the original question of this thread is analogous to defining a word, despite what it literally means, then asking something that contradicts that definition. Just as there are no homophobes who aren't homophobes, there isn't anything that exists outside of everything.
My point was that the roots of the word don't form the definition that is actually associated with its use. This is analogous to the word "universe" (and many other words, I'm sure) not having its root meaning match identically with its contemporary meaning. You can make analogous arguments with other words whos meaning has changed or has acquired new or additional meaning. The word "holocaust" will always be associated with the attrocities of Nazi Germany, even though it originally had nothing to do with them, and can still technically be used independent of those events (an extreme example, but it was the first to come to mind and I don't feel like digging up others at the moment).
But holocaust didn't lose its original definition as a fire sacrifice.
I don't either, but using the prefix "multi" seems to suggest their cosmology includes multiple universes.
In the same sense that "research" seems to indicate we have already found all the secrets of science, but need to find them again. Does it really mean "multiple universes"? Or is it just a more definitive-sounding word than universe, with the same meaning?
Just because it isn't multi-universe doesn't mean that that's not the obvious intention, they probably just didn't want to use a cumbersome, awkward word.
And they didn't just want to call it "universe".
I think that like Incenjucar, they probably figured that we would understand the suffix "verse", i.e. I would tend to assume that most people could figure out what a word like "pyroverse" would refer to if they are familiar with the word unvirse and know what pyro means.
It would mean "turning flame", unless someone applied a new definition to it. The Romans thought the universe was round, and thus the greatest thing that turned, the thing that contained all other things, the "turning one" is what became our word for universe. Any circular or spherical flame fits the definition of pyroverse.
Universe is a word that can mean "absolutely everything", but in contemporary, real world usage it doesn't always, and in Planescape it definitely doesn't.
You just said earlier that you couldn't find it in any Planescape book. Does Planescape define universe? And yes, 'universe' should mean 'absolutely everything'. 'Contemporary, real world usage' is wrong, because people don't understand such concepts. Ask around, see how many 'contemporary, real world' people think infinity + 1 is greater than infinity, or how many of them show disbelief that zero point nine-repeating equals one. Better yet, look at the mass of people who seriously think 2/3 is .66666667, not zero point six-repeating. Infinite concepts are terribly misused in modern society. Planescape should be at least one thing where people should make an effort to properly use them.
That's not quite the same. The term "verse" was already being used as part of the words we were discussing, so we have a basis for at least a general idea of what it refers to. Snazzgles and bigkrawps haven't been used anywhere in this discussion.
I used snazzgles and bigkrawps as hypotheticals. 'Verse' is indeed part of words we have been using, and it apparently means 'turning'. By itself, it would mean 'turning'. Since it was not used as word by itself in anything prior, it was meaningless to me. My point with the nonsense words 'snazzgle' and 'bigkrawp' is that you dismissed them just as I dismissed 'verse'.
Now if there were some other discussion where the word "snazzgle" and the word "krawp" had come up, then I would assume that "snazzgles" is the plural of "snazzgle" and "krawps" is the plural of "krawp" and adding the prefix "big" (even though I suppose technically it should be a separate word, or at least hyphenated, since "big" is not actually a suffix) to the word "krawps" refers to a plurality of krawps that are larger than typical krawps.
Indeed, you've committed a fallacy. I did not intend 'big' as a prefix. I typed random letters, and happened to get that. By assuming that 'bigkrawp' has anything to do with 'big' or 'krawp', you are in error. You can assume the plurals because I had numbers before the nouns. The s at the end does not necessarily define plurality either. Radius is singular, but radii are plural. Perhaps you can learn from this that taking parts of words to form new words may yield completely different words, or complete meaninglessness.
I can sight a number of times the Planescape books refer to the Outer Planes as being arranged in a wheel. That doesn't mean that they actually, physically are. Saying that the Inner Planes are "in" the Ethereal is done more for convenience (and maybe out of laziness) than because the Inner Planes are actually bounded, spherical regions arranged in a spherical pattern sitting in an Ethereal soup.
Well, I'm sorry, but the inner planes do exist in the ethereal. Reread your copy of A Guide to the Ethereal Plane. The outer planes may not form a physical wheel, but that wasn't part of my argument anywhere. They are still in the astral plane.
As for the Astral, well, there's more that thinks and has mental energy than just prime material beings. Outer Planar beings have thoughts as well. And why can't the realm of pure thought exist independent of physical creatures? You can have form without thought or spirit (rocks, for example), why couldn't you have mental energy without organic bodies?
Why can't you have mental energy without organic bodies? Think about it. No body, no brain. No brain, no mental energy. That's why. And I said that outer planars can affect the outer planes, but since you're flaming my post without reading it yet, you haven't actually read all of my points before you argue I haven't made them. How terribly inefficient, and a waste of forum space.
Again, I believe you are taking the word "in" far too literally and absolutely. And besides, the Astral Plane is typically viewed as being "in" the inner edge of the Great Wheel, with the Prime resting within the astral and the ethereal within the prime, etc.
I lost you here. The astral is not part of the Great Wheel, the Prime is not part of the astral, and the ethereal is not part of the Prime.
In 1e they used the idea that the Planes might actually be viewed more as a cup or bowl than a series of concentric circles, with the sides being the outer planes, the bottom being the Outlands, and the astral, prime, ethereal, and inner planes all resting within the bowl. That interpretation works just as well with Planescape cosmology as the "flat" Great Wheel idea, and it most definitely precludes the possibility of the Outer Planes being "in" the Astral.
Yes, but that is also contradictory to your vision of Planescape cosmology, is it not?
Also, I never said the Outer Planes weren't linked to thought and belief. I just said that the thought and belief on the Outer Planes might leak through the astral and into the Prime and that that is where prime creatures gain their thought and belief, much like how they gain their bodies from the Inner Planes. And I also pointed out that there are many places in Planescape books, particularly ones discussing the history of the fiends, that make it sound pretty much like it's generally accepted that the fiends (and therefore the planes they live on) predate the existence of Prime Material sentient beings.
Where do the inhabitants of the inner planes get their thought and belief?
Um, who ever said that the Inner Planes and what they create make up the intirety of the universe? In fact, that seems blatantly false given the rest of the Planescape cosmology.
Um, I didn't say the inner planes created the entire universe.
And... is that all? Are you sure? How do you know they don't create something else besides the demiplanes and prime material? And no, they can't create what they can't create, but that doesn't mean something they can't create doesn't exist. The Inner Planes, being pure physicality, can't create a realm of pure thought, but that doesn't mean one can't exist.
Good, you try to use reductio ad absurdum on what I said about the inner planes and outer planes. Now, try to argue what I said about both of them. Belief may have created a realm of pure thought. But if nothing created a realm of pure thought, then that does mean that one can't exist.
Are you following my argument at all? I never said anything about there being another prime material, or the Outer Planes "making something they didn't make." I said that there could be something besides the Prime, or something besides the Outer. Just because the Prime didn't make something doesn't mean it can't exist, it would just exist independent of the Prime.
Well, you said
This holds with your view that the Outer Planes are created by the Prime Material. Even if that's true, that doesn't exclude the possibility of something else besides the Outer Planes existing, or something completely independent of the Prime existing.
The outer planes are shaped by belief. Something else like the outer planes couldn't exist, because belief shapes the outer planes, not your hypothetical planes. As for 'something completely independent of the Prime', what do you mean? A plane with access to the ethereal and astral planes is prime. If whatever you mean has only ethereal access, it is a demiplane; if it has only astral access, it is an outher plane.
And the Outer Planes are belief, they weren't necessarily built by it, as I've already said.
Again, this seems contradictory. You would seem to agree that without belief, the outer planes could not exist. Doesn't it make sense then, that they are built of belief, if they are belief?
I don't see how your response has anything to do with my statement. How does the Outer Planes being created by belief prevent them from giving rise to a "higher" reality? All I said in the previous argument was that if the Inner Planes created the Prime Material, and the Prime Material created the Outer, then there's no reason why that trend can't continue and the Outer Planes create something other set of Planes around themselves, and those Planes give rise to yet a higher tier, and those to yet an even higher tier, and so on, ad infinitum. Really, it seems rather fitting to the Planescape cosmology that there would be an infinite number of tiers of reality, rather than just 5.
You apparently didn't read what I posted. Belief created the outer planes. If people on the outer planes have belief, that affects the outer planes. Belief doesn't affect some hypothetical planes just because the believers are in the outer planes.
Your last sentence reads, (omitting a few obstructing words) "if Object X exists, Object X does not exist."
Your argument (omitting a few obstructing words), is "." You don't have a point.
Maybe you should write less sloppy proofs. Besides, I myself, and the Planescape setting, and most importantly the starter of this thread, don't seem to accept your definition of the word "universe", not in the context of the primary question of this thread at least.
You apparently don't understand the law of the excluded middle. For the statement "Object X does not exist inside the universe", there is an equal statement "Object X exists outside the universe". If your only attack against my logic is that you don't like how it's phrased, I wouldn't admit to others. My definition of universe encompasses everything, and if, for some reason, people do not believe that the word 'universe' means what it means, I used the word 'multiverse' in my proof. There are plenty of people who do agree with my definition. Some people will object to anything, but that is not a valid reason to declare all logic invalid, and all proofs unsound.
There you go. Plato's realm of perfect ideals doesn't really fit with the Planescape cosmology, thus if you include it in your campaign, it exists outside the Planescape cosmology, i.e. outside the Planescape multiverse. We finally have an answer.
How can you include Plato's realm in a Planescape campaign? You can't go there. You haven't proved anything that contradicts me, for two reasons: 1.) I've proven that nothing exists outside of the Planescape multiverse that is part of the Planescape multiverse, and 2.) What if I hypothesize a plane that is called Mechanus, but is, in fact, very chaotic? This doesn't really fit with the Planescape cosmology, but that doesn't prove me wrong. One could say such a thing as the chaotic Mechanus are outside the Planescape multiverse, because I've proven this is synonymous with saying these things don't exist.
You aren't understanding the point I just made. I said that many campaigns never even use the Planes or any part of the Planescape cosmology. If they were to take an attitude similar to yours, they would "feel sorry" for everyone who plays planescape or includes planar or dimensional traveling in their campaigns, not being able to make a Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk (or Earth based, in other systems) campaign interesting within itself. But that is just a closed-minded, rather pretentious and elitist point of view. People don't play Planescape because they are necessarily "bored" with Krynn or Toril or Warhammer or Rifts or whatever. They, I'm sure, could still run perfectly enjoyable games within just those single worlds. But at some point maybe they would just like to play a game with extradimensional components just for the experience. Those of us who would like to think about something outside the Great Wheel aren't necessarily "bored" with it, we might just like the idea of at least intellectually wondering about things that might possibly exist outside it. I really don't see what is wrong or contemptible about trying to stretch our imaginations to their utmost.
No, Planescape is a different experience than other role-playing worlds, but I don't suggest it is an escape from boredom. In Forgotten Realms, if the party explored all of Toril in a quick, survey campaign, and then the DM created a new continent in a flash of magic, I would feel sorry for those people, as I feel sorry for those who create new planes in a flash of magic for something new to explore, when there is certainly still Planescape to be had.
Originally posted by Incenjucar Verse: A term I will use, henceforth, to define a self-contained space, that may or may not contain other verses. A demi-plane is a verse. The ethereal is a verse. The planescape cosmology is a verse. The alternative cosmologies are verses. All possible realities which can be accessed are verses. That which contains these is a verse. A verse can be a plane, a demiplane, or a pocket dimension.
Universe: All that is. However many or few the verses are, they are all contained within this verse. There is no such thing as 'outside' the universe. No cosmology is free of a universe. There cannot be more than one universe.
Multiverse: This is a theoretical model of a universe that assumes there is one or more verses contained within the universal whole. This can mean exactly one demiplane beyond the universeal whole, or the vast number we see in planescape. Not only is this certain to be the case in D&D, but it may also be true in the real universe we all live in.
These definitions allow for something to exist outside of the multiverse. Something that would exist outside of the multiverse would likely be a new demiplane.
However, as soon as something outside the multiverse was discovered, it would become part of it, would it not? Theories can be altered and adjusted.
Originally posted by RandomPrecision
Why can't you have mental energy without organic bodies? Think about it. No body, no brain. No brain, no mental energy. That's why. And I said that outer planars can affect the outer planes, but since you're flaming my post without reading it yet, you haven't actually read all of my points before you argue I haven't made them. How terribly inefficient, and a waste of forum space.
Ummm...what about elementals? If you want to argue that they have brains of a sort, then what about the hypothesized Vacuum Quasielemental? I don't have my MC's on me right now, otherwise I'd look up another thing or two that is without brain but still has thought.
Um, I didn't say the inner planes created the entire universe.
Yes you did. You say that the inners created the prime created the outers. That's the whole shebang from your point of view, IIRYC.
The outer planes are shaped by belief. Something else like the outer planes couldn't exist, because belief shapes the outer planes, not your hypothetical planes. As for 'something completely independent of the Prime', what do you mean? A plane with access to the ethereal and astral planes is prime. If whatever you mean has only ethereal access, it is a demiplane; if it has only astral access, it is an outher plane.
Why can't belief shape something other than the outer planes in addition to them? I don't see where this is prohibitted. It's like saying "water turns the turbines at Aswan dam; it can't erode the Nile valley, too." What if that "ethereal access only" world is infinite in scope and is shaped by belief? This doesn't fit into the conventional definition of outer, inner, prime, demi, or any other sort of plane. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because you set a definition and say there is nothing else doesn't make something else's existance untrue. Did relativity's conflict with classical physics mean that it (relativity) couldn't have been correct? Nope, it meant that the rules weren't what we had thought.Personally, I think discovering a new mechanic behind the multiverse is something worthy of an epic Planescape campaign.
What if I hypothesize a plane that is called Mechanus, but is, in fact, very chaotic? This doesn't really fit with the Planescape cosmology, but that doesn't prove me wrong. One could say such a thing as the chaotic Mechanus are outside the Planescape multiverse, because I've proven this is synonymous with saying these things don't exist.
Wrong. You would still have an RAA in your argument, but I wouldn't apply it to the existance of the chaotic Mechanus. I'd apply it to the definition of multiverse as all-encompassing since you are, at least in this case, specifically using the terms "Planescape cosmology" and "Planescape multiverse." If such a place existed, it would prove that "Planescape multiverse" is not all-encompassing. We can still run around in circles about whether the more generic terms "multiverse" and "universe" are or are not, but that isn't the point of this thread.
Originally posted by Sildatorak
Ummm...what about elementals? If you want to argue that they have brains of a sort, then what about the hypothesized Vacuum Quasielemental? I don't have my MC's on me right now, otherwise I'd look up another thing or two that is without brain but still has thought.
I thought this was to off-topic to concern you. But anyway, something sentient has to produce mental energy. I was clarifying why rocks and whatnot cannot produce the outer plane cosmology.
Yes you did. You say that the inners created the prime created the outers. That's the whole shebang from your point of view, IIRYC.
That's like saying my parents created me, and I created this post, so my parents created this post.
Why can't belief shape something other than the outer planes in addition to them? I don't see where this is prohibitted. It's like saying "water turns the turbines at Aswan dam; it can't erode the Nile valley, too."
No, its like saying that water turns the turbines at the Aswan dam, but that doesn't mean something other than water doesn't turn the turbines. And I disagree with that.
What if that "ethereal access only" world is infinite in scope and is shaped by belief? This doesn't fit into the conventional definition of outer, inner, prime, demi, or any other sort of plane. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That is circulus in demonstrando. If such a plane existed, it would indeed exist. I cannot argue that. However, the premise, that such a plane exists, is questionable, given that belief shapes the outer planes, which do not border the ethereal.
Just because you set a definition and say there is nothing else doesn't make something else's existance untrue.
My definitions don't destroy things that exist. However, things that cannot logically exist can't just appear.
Did relativity's conflict with classical physics mean that it (relativity) couldn't have been correct? Nope, it meant that the rules weren't what we had thought. Personally, I think discovering a new mechanic behind the multiverse is something worthy of an epic Planescape campaign.
We didn't just make up the physical laws that govern our world. Since we defined what the word 'universe' means, we are indeed certain of what it means. Physics must be observed, then described with theorems. The mechanic one would have to find would be that the multiverse isn't actually the multiverse.
Wrong. You would still have an RAA in your argument, but I wouldn't apply it to the existance of the chaotic Mechanus.
Define RAA.
I'd apply it to the definition of multiverse as all-encompassing since you are, at least in this case, specifically using the terms "Planescape cosmology" and "Planescape multiverse." If such a place existed, it would prove that "Planescape multiverse" is not all-encompassing. We can still run around in circles about whether the more generic terms "multiverse" and "universe" are or are not, but that isn't the point of this thread.
It appears that what you are trying to express is that anything that doesn't exist is outside of the Planescape multiverse. This makes sense, but do consider that premise: it doesn't exist. Therefore, it is indeed "outside the multiverse", but it is also outside of existence.
Originally posted by RandomPrecision
I thought this was to off-topic to concern you. But anyway, something sentient has to produce mental energy. I was clarifying why rocks and whatnot cannot produce the outer plane cosmology.
But something non-material could still have "mental energy." This is the point that Freefall was trying to make, I believe. In D&D sentience is not necessarily tied to a material form. And who's to say that rocks couldn't produce an outer planar cosmology? Not this one, certainly, but who are we to judge what rocks believe and don't believe.
That's like saying my parents created me, and I created this post, so my parents created this post.
But without your parents, the post would not exist.
No, its like saying that water turns the turbines at the Aswan dam, but that doesn't mean something other than water doesn't turn the turbines. And I disagree with that.
No. Freefall stated that belief is not limited to forming the outer planes. It could form both the outer planes and something other than them that we just don't know about yet.
That is circulus in demonstrando. If such a plane existed, it would indeed exist. I cannot argue that. However, the premise, that such a plane exists, is questionable, given that belief shapes the outer planes, which do not border the ethereal.
My definitions don't destroy things that exist. However, things that cannot logically exist can't just appear.
Planescape is about the impossible made real, IMHO. We can't know anything with 100% certainty, especially something as grand as what rules really govern the planes (though this doesn't stop us from trying). I'll agree that it is highly illogical under the current set of ideas about the nature of the planes for such a infinite, belief built, ethereal-linked plane to exist. This doesn't make it impossible since there is the definite chance that everything you know is wrong. Your logic is impeccable, but your assumption that the generic Planescape comsology is the be-all and end-all of the potential multiverse is off, IMO.
The mechanic one would have to find would be that the multiverse isn't actually the multiverse.
Assuming by the first "multiverse" you mean the Planescape cosmology and by the second "multiverse" you mean "everything that exists," that is exactly what I'm saying.
Define RAA.
Reductio ad absurdum. Sorry, my logical background is in symbollic logic and I have a tendancy to abbrv.
It appears that what you are trying to express is that anything that doesn't exist is outside of the Planescape multiverse. This makes sense, but do consider that premise: it doesn't exist. Therefore, it is indeed "outside the multiverse", but it is also outside of existence.
No, I must have missed on that one. I was trying to say that the "Planescape multiverse" does not necessarily encompass the totallity of existance. I'm saying that anything that is incompatible with the set of rules governing the "Planescape multiverse" is outside of the "Planescape multiverse." This would not mean it doesn't exist, it just means that the rules that are supposed to govern everything don't.
Originally posted by Sildatorak
But something non-material could still have "mental energy." This is the point that Freefall was trying to make, I believe. In D&D sentience is not necessarily tied to a material form. And who's to say that rocks couldn't produce an outer planar cosmology? Not this one, certainly, but who are we to judge what rocks believe and don't believe.
I agree that things in the inner planes can have mental energy. But seriously, rocks don't believe in things. They're rocks. Sentient things can, and rocks are typically not sentient. Sentient forms, material or otherwise, have belief.
But without your parents, the post would not exist.
The inner planes created the demiplanes and prime material. Belief created the outer planes. The prime material planes aren't necessary, but they strongly influence the outer planes.
No. Freefall stated that belief is not limited to forming the outer planes. It could form both the outer planes and something other than them that we just don't know about yet.
This hypothetical belief plane couldn't exist with the astral plane like the outer planes, I assume. Since time doesn't exist in the astral plane, it seems that such a place most certainly would have been discovered by now. Belief links believers to the outer planes through the whole petitioner/proxy thing, and there are no unidentified planes not part of the great ring that have petitioners and proxies.
Planescape is about the impossible made real, IMHO. We can't know anything with 100% certainty, especially something as grand as what rules really govern the planes (though this doesn't stop us from trying). I'll agree that it is highly illogical under the current set of ideas about the nature of the planes for such a infinite, belief built, ethereal-linked plane to exist. This doesn't make it impossible since there is the definite chance that everything you know is wrong. Your logic is impeccable, but your assumption that the generic Planescape comsology is the be-all and end-all of the potential multiverse is off, IMO.
Hey, thanks for calling my logic impeccable.
I don't know about all of the rules of the multiverse being wrong. An infinite belief plane in the ethereal would be rather extreme, although I acknowledge a slim possibility.
Assuming by the first "multiverse" you mean the Planescape cosmology and by the second "multiverse" you mean "everything that exists," that is exactly what I'm saying.
No, I didn't intend for the definition of the word to change mid-sentence.
Reductio ad absurdum.
D'oh! :embarrass
Sorry, my logical background is in symbollic logic and I have a tendancy to abbrv.
Hey, that's cool. I wish I had more of a background in logic.
No, I must have missed on that one. I was trying to say that the "Planescape multiverse" does not necessarily encompass the totallity of existance. I'm saying that anything that is incompatible with the set of rules governing the "Planescape multiverse" is outside of the "Planescape multiverse." This would not mean it doesn't exist, it just means that the rules that are supposed to govern everything don't. [/b]
Actually, in responding to this, I think I understand my perspective a bit more. My argument is that things in the multiverse are governed by the laws of the multiverse. Additionally, if something is not in the multiverse, it doesn't exist. Thus, if something is not governed by the laws of the multiverse, it is not part of the multiverse, and therefore, it doesn't exist.
I'll work on proving that objects in the multiverse are governed by laws of the multiverse.
Originally posted by RandomPrecision
These definitions allow for something to exist outside of the multiverse. Something that would exist outside of the multiverse would likely be a new demiplane.
However, as soon as something outside the multiverse was discovered, it would become part of it, would it not? Theories can be altered and adjusted.
False.
All that exists is part of the universe. To add a new existance is merely EXPANDING the universe.
The 'universe' is more than the 'known universe', unless everything in all of existance is known.
Originally posted by Incenjucar
False.
All that exists is part of the universe. To add a new existance is merely EXPANDING the universe.
The 'universe' is more than the 'known universe', unless everything in all of existance is known.
These seem contradictory. If the universe is absolutely everything (second statement), nothing could be added (first statement). Additionally, I asked a question based on the definition you supplied for multiverse.
Universe="All That Exists"
If a demplane suddenly exists, it's part of all that exists.
What you're suggesting is that water, added to a lake, is not automatically part of that lake.
Originally posted by Incenjucar
False.
Universe="All That Exists"
If a demplane suddenly exists, it's part of all that exists.
What you're suggesting is that water, added to a lake, is not automatically part of that lake.
Again, I was asking about the word "multiverse". However, I will surrender on this argument, and therefore, nothing exists outside the multiverse.
The point is, if you use the Far Realms as written in your campaign, then you have all the normal planes of Planescape, and they all fit together, and then there's a weird, maddening place called the Far Realm which is separate from these. Maybe it's off away from them, maybe it surrounds them. It doesn't really matter. What the word "multiverse" means doesn't really matter. They came up with it before they came up with the Far Realms. And the people who came up with the idea for the Far Realms were not Planescape people anyway, and we've all seen what happens when planes are messed with in a way that doesn't fit with Planescape: nobody notices except for Planescapers, who all go nuts. Like this.
Originally posted by Factol Rhys
math theorems
That reminds me of a funny story (since we're off topic so much I don't mind telling it). I switched my major from psychology to biology and my new advisor looked at my transcript and said "That's odd, I've never seen philosophy meet a math requirement before."
Did I say the story was funny? Oops.
Originally posted by RandomPrecision
I said multiverse. No English dictionary contains a definition of multiverse.
multiverse n. Philos. The plurality of worlds as conceived in or projected by the mind: contrasted with universe.
- Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary
Originally posted by Factol Rhys
If we can imagine and agree that there are over thirty thematically-aligned alternate dimensions which can be reached by special doorways as long as you're carrying some certain unusual object, then why can't something exist outside of it? And we're talking about the Far Realms, here. This is supposed to be the dimension in which all the normal rules that you thought were hard-set get broken in half and thrown out the window. People who try to understand the Far Realms go irrevocably insane. Which is what seems to have happened here.
Bravo!
By, the way, on the finding of "multiverse" in the dictionary, wow. Not the Planescape definition, but still more than I expected to appear in a dictionary.
Originally posted by RandomPrecision
If the Far Realms aren't part of the multiverse, where are they? Do they exist in an "omniverse" or some other ad hoc word?
I haven't read the entire thread, having just jumped in on the last page, but here's what I see as the crux of the issue. Your argument basically boils down to this:
"If x encompasses all that exists, then nothing can exist outside of x."
(for "x" read multiverse, universe, cosmos, or whatever other word you favor)
The logic of this statement is perfectly valid, but a logical argument is only a true argument if all of its postulates are true. In this case, whether you agree with the postulate "x encompasses all that exists" depends on your definition of x. If your argument is founded on a particular definition of a term, then it doesn't matter how flawless your logic is if the people you're arguing with have a different definition.
If you define x as "the sum total of everything that exists," then the argument is not only true, it's a tautology. However, if you have a different definition of x, then it's possible for something to exist outside of x. It seems to me that some people are defining "multiverse" as "all the planes described in the Planescape campaign setting." Whether this is a valid definition of the term is a question of semantics. (At any rate, it's not precluded by the dictionary definition I gave above, because "plurality" is ambiguous.) However, I find that Sword_of_Geddon conceded the point way back on the first page of this thread:
Anyway, I agree now that I think about it, that any other place that would be discovered is technically part of the Multiverse, since Multiverse means every Plane in existence, right?
So now that we got that settled, I believe what I am referring to is Planar groups, like the Great Wheel(Outer Planes), or the Inner Planes, or something along those lines.
Now can we talk about Elsewhere?
Since he's the one who started this thread, I think people ought to respect his wishes and intentions in starting it instead of continuing to bog down the thread with futile and antagonistic deabtes over semantics. But I guess it's too late for that.
Wyvern
P.S. Just to be thorough, here's another definition of multiverse that I found on a astronomy site: "Hypothetical enlargement of the cosmos in which our Universe is but one of an enormous number of separate and distinct Universes."
Originally posted by Wyvern76
I haven't read the entire thread, having just jumped in on the last page,...The logic of this statement is perfectly valid, but a logical argument is only a true argument if all of its postulates are true.
In place of true, you mean sound, and in place of postulates, you mean axioms, but a rose by any other name smells just as sweet.
In this case, whether you agree with the postulate "x encompasses all that exists" depends on your definition of x. If your argument is founded on a particular definition of a term, then it doesn't matter how flawless your logic is if the people you're arguing with have a different definition.
The creator of the thread had this definition, which you quoted in a later paragraph: "Anyway, I agree now that I think about it, that any other place that would be discovered is technically part of the Multiverse, since Multiverse means every Plane in existence, right?"
If you define x as "the sum total of everything that exists," then the argument is not only true, it's a tautology.
While the argument is fairly tautological, to answer the question, the contrapositve of your summary of my argument is more effective. I state, in a nutshell, "The universe is everything that exists", and the contrapositive is "Nothing exists that is not part of the universe".
However, if you have a different definition of x, then it's possible for something to exist outside of x. It seems to me that some people are defining "multiverse" as "all the planes described in the Planescape campaign setting."
I go by the definition that I inferred from the Planescape books, which appears to be the definition of the author of this thread.
P.S. Just to be thorough, here's another definition of multiverse that I found on a astronomy site: "Hypothetical enlargement of the cosmos in which our Universe is but one of an enormous number of separate and distinct Universes."
Interesting, but it doesn't change the active definition of "multiverse" in this thread. A hypothetical enlargement of the cosmos. A theory that assuredly has its own definition of 'universe' to describe a set of galaxies and other objects uses 'multiverse' to describe the set of all 'universes'.
Let me just say, this is the most off topic and randomly idiotic thread I've ever seen. We all understood the question.
...
Instead, you have argued about the meaning of the word universe/multiverse/omniverse, the nature of chaos, spent far too much effort in debates that are not only unstimulating but completely mindless... and all of this occurred when the the intent of the original question was obviously clear.
The words don't matter. If I wish to call my Prime world a universe I sure as hell can. Noone can stop me. If I want to call this television remote Universal, despite its inability to control every TV in the universe, who shall stop me?
...
I concur wholeheartedly. Reading some of these posts maddens me in terms of the ignorance and/or disrespect that is apparent in these propositions. The purpose of language is to convey meaning. It has no other purpose or function. Twenty years ago, "ain't" wasn't an officially sanctioned word, but everyone who was familiar with it new its meaning. Somehow, miraculously, it was added to dictionaries. The reference existed, and the meaning well understood before it was in any dictionary. Language is dynamic. Language is not restricted by dictionaries. Language is also not restricted by the specific roots and relations of word families and origins. Is "bitte" a word? I can't find it in an english dictionary, yet I know its meaning in german.
"Universe" is a hold over from another language. "Google" is a relatively recent addition with no relation to roots or previous words. "Grok", "double plus ungood", "I33t", "dragon", and "Valaquenta" are all examples of words that are used in various contexts from various origins that have meaning and successfully convey those meanings. How do you think the first word was created? The only matter of import is that a meaning can be agreed on such that ideas can be conveyed. Everyone does not need to agree. If you do not like a particular definition, you can constructively work to modify it, or you can join the clinically braindead, potted plants, rocks, and the terminally obstinant, in either your refusal or your complete inability to comprehend reasonable concepts. All that is required is a convention. Here are my personal conventions for this topic:
UNIVERSE
I limit my definition of the term "Universe" to those things in the physical world. This term has become increasingly steeped in the domain of science as metaphysics (once the dominant field of philosophy) fades into obscurity with the increasing ability of science to describe what is. Thus, I do not believe that
the term "universe" retains the concept of all existence. I would say that it represents the concept of all contiguous dimensional existence, in that it represents the nature of everything in our physical universe throughout all of time, and over how ever many dimensions constitute this contiguous dimensional set. In game terms, this represents the whole of one prime material plane. One universe. I see no place for Hell within the Universe.
MULTIVERSE
I, along with a quorum of people on these boards and in modern physics, easily understand "Multiverse" to be a reference to all potential alternate contigous dimensional sets, not being contiguous with each other. In Game terms this is the collection of all of the separate planes of existence in the D&D Cosmology. In quantum physics, this would represent the collection of all potential dimensional sets discontiguous with our own. These would include those resulting from Many Worlds Theories, Turtles on down Theories, Foam of Universes Theories, Universes with different dimensional sets, Universes with different metrics, etc... Each of these Universes is distinct, regardless of the original meaning of the word. By the way, does anyone else find the concept of a word for the entirety of existence moot anyway. Is there any point to aggregating the totality of reality. What would this be used for? Certainly not opposing it to something outside of it. If the universe is reality or existence, why have the extra words. They must have shades of meaning otherwise we could get away with just existence or reality or universe, instead of having all three words meaning the exact same thing. Hell would be inside of the Multiverse. My own take is that the Astral Plane has physical dimension, but that it is supremely morphic based on the mind. The Astral would be inside the Multiverse.
OMNIVERSE
I have not used this word much, but again, I think that most people easily understand the distinction, relavence, and context.
This would include sets of Multiverses that would be discontiguous or separated from each other by certain criteria. Maybe this criteria is lack of dimensional set or having a purely conceptual dimensional set such as dream or nightmare. Perhaps nothing is measurable in this other reality. Sounds vaguely like the Far Realms to me.
Here are some questions I have about planes/dimensions fitting into this model:
Dimensions vs. Planes of Existence in Game
I like the idea of having both of these available in the game as areas of exploration, mystery, and challenges. Often these two ideas are confused or used interchangeably. I prefer to treat these as beng completely different and independent of each other. The default dimensional set is 3 spacial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension. Some might suggest that the ethereal/astral/inner planes are the 5th dimension, as I believe 1e psionics may have noted. I do not like this because it links Planes and dimensions. If they are the same, that removes the other as an option. Frankly, I think that most (if not all) planes should have an infinite number of possible dimensions, to leave the door open for adventure and more scifi/mathematical type stuff if wante. Perhaps magic draws on higher dimensions. Perhaps the Deities acquire more dimensions as they improve in rank. It is interesting to think of adventures in 2 and 3 dimensions academically, but I would probably say that life requires a minimum of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension. Other Planes of Existence might have a different order to the dimesions that apply to them. Perhaps dimensions automap to one another, or perhaps special magic needs to be invoked.
Plane of Time
I am a bit perplexed with what to do with this Plane. I like the idea, but it seems wrong that there should be a Plane that represents 1 type of dimension (even if it is an infinite number of purely temporal dimensions), as time seems so fundamental to the rest of the cosmology, and indeed runs through every reality the PCs and NPCs will interact with/in. Perhaps the Plane of Imprisonment is the Spatial equivalent (an infinite number of spatial dimensions), without temporal dimensions, and that is why it is effective at imprisoning things. These could oppose each other like Positive and Negative energy planes. Perhaps force effects are pulled directly from the Plane of Imprisonment.
Planes beyond the Standard Cosmology
I prefer the 2e Ethereal and Astral, and a Shadow Plane that is like a mirror ethereal. I also like the idea of the Ordial Plane between Inner and Outer Planes. I do think the Far Realm makes a good equivalent to the Astral for the next ring out. Perhaps embedded on a ring or sphere farther out in the Far Realm Sea is the Realm of Dreams or planes where pure emotion or faith are the basis of reality. Overgods might have good reason to keep lesser beings out, so as to maintain their dominance elsewhere in the Omniverse. Maybe there are Divine Well Planes that could be the end of epic quests. Perhaps there are planes that map the standard ability scores in some very complex way to completely new ability scores rating elemental and psionic nature instead of physical and mental properties. Perhaps there are planes that permanently change the order of an items dimensions such that they appear drastically different on other planes.
I hope this was a reasonable contribution to the topic, instead of many of the posts here that only ended up proving the poster was hostile, unreasonable, and immature.
Originally posted by Soulsong
Plane of Time
I am a bit perplexed with what to do with this Plane. I like the idea, but it seems wrong that there should be a Plane that represents 1 type of dimension (even if it is an infinite number of purely temporal dimensions), as time seems so fundamental to the rest of the cosmology, and indeed runs through every reality the PCs and NPCs will interact with/in.
I personally treat the "Plane of Time" as a misnomer, or at least I did when I still had the Chronomancer's Handbook or whatever it was called. It described each plane as having a dimension of time that you could access through certain spells that was very similar to the description of the "Plane" of Time. Each plane had its own time stream, and you could even see the time streams of alternate versions of the plane across an infinite void. Maybe what lies beyond this multiverse is simply more like it where the random chances played out differently (assuming of course, that there is some random element like rolling dice that determines the results of actions in the multiverse ;))
The purpose of language is to convey meaning. It has no other purpose or function.
Yes it does. That's like saying music has no purpose other than to convey noise. I guess painting has no purpose other than to convey paint, then? There is a such thing as beautiful language that carries no meaning. Furthermore, it is as perfectly valid for the reader to find meaning in ways that the author never intended. Large portions of my writing have been dedicated to those specific aspects. While you may think it's not good writing, it is indeed a use of language.
Since he's the one who started this thread, I think people ought to respect his wishes and intentions in starting it instead of continuing to bog down the thread with futile and antagonistic deabtes over semantics.
Why? He only gets the first post. Everyone else is free to do as they wish. Nobody "owns" a discussion, and the natural state of a discussion is to be what these boards consider "off-topic".
Reading some of these posts maddens me in terms of the ignorance and/or disrespect that is apparent in these propositions.
You need to take arguments on the internet a lot less seriously then. C'mon man, it's just a fun troll. Don't take it so hard. I'm suprised the WizO's haven't closed this thing yet.
Equivocating the defintion of multiverse provided by Planescape with alternate definitions denies meaning to the word multiverse. I use the Planescape definition of multiverse. I do not assume that the multiverse is just a part of a greater "omniverse" or "megaverse".
Your definition of multiverse does not allow for Far Realms, or any other realm added by a DM. This is exactly what I have been arguing for. Yet, you try to disprove me using argument ad hominem, but that is an invalid way to conduct an argument. Furthermore, I agree with your definition of multiverse. I have been told several times that things could exist outside of all things observed or postulated, but this is a contradiction in terms. When pushed, if necessary, a definition of multiverse similar to yours is commonly accepted in this thread. The proof I posted earlier,
1. Everything that exists is the multiverse. (Reversed definition of universe)
2. If something is part of everything that exists, it is part of the multiverse. (Transitive Property, 1)
3. If something exists, it is part of everything that exists. (Premise)
4. Object X is not part of the multiverse. (Premise from question)
5. Object X is not part of everything that exists. (Modus tollens from 4 and 2)
6. Object X does not exist. (Modus tollens from 5 and 3)
Conclusion: If something is not part of the multiverse, it cannot exist.
demonstrates how, if the multiverse is defined as everything that exists (or everything observed and postulated, or a reference to all potential alternate contigous dimensional sets, not being contiguous with each other. In Game terms this is the collection of all of the separate planes of existence in the D&D Cosmology. In quantum physics, this would represent the collection of all potential dimensional sets discontiguous with our own, these are all similar enough for the proof to be sound), nothing can exist outside of the universe. Arguably, the proof could be shortened to two steps, the premise (definition of multiverse), and the contrapositive of the definition.
Some of you may be interested in a letter I found on the internet. http://www.ucolick.org/~mountain/AAA/answers/cosmology/co5.html
Yes, I understood your point. What I indicated was, the original question of this thread is analogous to defining a word, despite what it literally means, then asking something that contradicts that definition. Just as there are no homophobes who aren't homophobes, there isn't anything that exists outside of everything.
Lots of words mean things other than their literal meaning. And defining something to mean something other than its literal meaning and then asking a question based on that meaning does not contradict that definition. The original poster obviously did not consider the multiverse to contain absolutely everything, at least not when he asked the question, in which case, asking what might be outside of the multiverse is a perfectly valid question.
But holocaust didn't lose its original definition as a fire sacrifice.
I never said it had, and I never said that "universe" had definitively lost its meaning of "all that is," I just said that it can be used in other ways, and as far as this thread and the Planescape setting is concerned, the idea that there can be a plurality of universes fits better than the idea of it being all-encompassing. I was also arguing that the idea of a single universe being only one of many seems to be more in keeping with what the original poster was originally thinking of.
In the same sense that "research" seems to indicate we have already found all the secrets of science, but need to find them again. Does it really mean "multiple universes"? Or is it just a more definitive-sounding word than universe, with the same meaning?
I think that at the least the term was borrowed from Marvel Comics, where it refers to the collection of parallel or quantum universes associated with a particular universe. I don't know if the term predates Marvel; it very well could. However, my experience is that it typically refers to a collection of universes. In Planescape, each plane is likely considered its own universe, they just don't call it that. They also don't usually call powers "gods," but we still know what they mean.
It would mean "turning flame", unless someone applied a new definition to it. The Romans thought the universe was round, and thus the greatest thing that turned, the thing that contained all other things, the "turning one" is what became our word for universe. Any circular or spherical flame fits the definition of pyroverse.
Only to you and maybe Latin majors or linguistic purists. If I were to put the term "pyroverse" into a science fiction book or the like I think most people would interpret it to mean "unverse of fire," and get an idea of something more or less like the elemental plane of fire. Very few people are aware of, or care about, the Roman meaning of the word "verse." Things have changed a bit in the past 1500+ years or so.
You just said earlier that you couldn't find it in any Planescape book. Does Planescape define universe?
I said I couldn't think of a specific reference and I didn't feel like looking for one. But if you really need it,here's a quote from pg 5, column 2, 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph under "The Outer Planes" from "A Player's Guide to the Planes" in the Planescape Campaign Setting:
As mentioned, the Outer Planes are arranged in an immense ring, and each plane is its own universe.
'Contemporary, real world usage' is wrong, because people don't understand such concepts. Ask around, see how many 'contemporary, real world' people think infinity + 1 is greater than infinity, or how many of them show disbelief that zero point nine-repeating equals one. Better yet, look at the mass of people who seriously think 2/3 is .66666667, not zero point six-repeating. Infinite concepts are terribly misused in modern society. Planescape should be at least one thing where people should make an effort to properly use them.
Math is different from most other words because it is based to a large degree on real world, physical relationships and quantities. If people started calling 2 "oren", then eventually that's what it would be called in normal usage. Same with calling 3 "trekal." However, that will not change the fact that oren/trekal is not a whole number. Words like "universe" are more abstract; not being based on true relationships, they can mean whatever we want them too.
I used snazzgles and bigkrawps as hypotheticals. 'Verse' is indeed part of words we have been using, and it apparently means 'turning'. By itself, it would mean 'turning'. Since it was not used as word by itself in anything prior, it was meaningless to me. My point with the nonsense words 'snazzgle' and 'bigkrawp' is that you dismissed them just as I dismissed 'verse'.
No, I dismissed them because they were not part of a discussion we were already engaged in and therefore there was no precedent to infer their meaning from. That is very different from when Incenjucar dropped the suffixes to "verse."
Indeed, you've committed a fallacy. I did not intend 'big' as a prefix. I typed random letters, and happened to get that.
I find it very hard to believe that you managed to produce such readily pronounceable words, both ending with "s," which commonly denotes plurality in english, and being associated with numbers greater than 1, from completely random keystrokes.
By assuming that 'bigkrawp' has anything to do with 'big' or 'krawp', you are in error. You can assume the plurals because I had numbers before the nouns. The s at the end does not necessarily define plurality either.
What I said was that if someone started a discussion on a thread, and they used the word "scrazzgle" and "krawp", and defined both of them, and used them for a while, and then typed the word "snazzgles" and the word "krawps", then I, and I believe most other people, could take it in stride fairly easily and assume that these simply refer to a plurality of either, unless somehow the context was so far off that it made such interpretation impossible (which would not be the case if those words were associated with numbers like in your example). The point is that most of us could continue with the conversation knowing what the words mean without having to stop and ask the poster to then "define snazzgles" because while we know what a "snazzlge" is, "snazzgles" could be a completely different thing and we should never assume its meaning. Basically, there are some things we can figure out on our own.
Now, I know that when you typed them they meant nothing, I was just highlighting a situation in which they were based on other words being in use that did have meaning, which was the case when Incenjucar used the word "verse".
Well, I'm sorry, but the inner planes do exist in the ethereal. Reread your copy of A Guide to the Ethereal Plane. The outer planes may not form a physical wheel, but that wasn't part of my argument anywhere. They are still in the astral plane.
No, it was part of my argument. The Inner Planes may be portrayed as being "in" the ethereal, but the Outer Planes are also portrayed as being arranged in a ring. That doesn't mean either is actually physically true. And I certainly don't remember ever reading that the Outer Planes are "in" the Astral.
Why can't you have mental energy without organic bodies? Think about it. No body, no brain. No brain, no mental energy. That's why.
There are plenty of beings in D&D that think and have intelligence without having brains.
And I said that outer planars can affect the outer planes, but since you're flaming my post without reading it yet, you haven't actually read all of my points before you argue I haven't made them. How terribly inefficient, and a waste of forum space.
Your original argument, as I remember it, was that the Prime Material created the Outer Planes. If you've changed that position just say so.
I lost you here. The astral is not part of the Great Wheel, the Prime is not part of the astral, and the ethereal is not part of the Prime.
What I mean is that the Great Ring is a ring, not a solid circle. Normally the Outlands are shown in the center, but I'm pretty sure I've seen at least once, or gotten the impression, that instead of having the outlands in the center, you have the Astral "ring" sitting just within the inner edge of the Outer Planes. Within the Astral ring is the Prime Material, and within this, the Ethereal, and within this, the Inner. It's a basically a concentric circle diagram, except that the "far" edge of the Outer isn't normally viewed as being bordered by or bounded by anything.
Yes, but that is also contradictory to your vision of Planescape cosmology, is it not?
Not really. My vision of Planescape cosmology is that assigning physical relationships between the Planes is ultimately false, and the Planewalker's Handbook suggests as much, but that doesn't mean it can't be done for convenience (like flat maps). Anyway, my point with bringing that model up was that there are different ways in which to represent the arrangement of the Planes, and at least one of them shows extremely clearly that the Outer Planes are not within the Astral, so contending that it is absolutely true that the Outer are in the Astral is most definitely a faulty statement.
Where do the inhabitants of the inner planes get their thought and belief?
Beats me. The books never really explain this. They also never really explain (at least, from what I can remember) exactly what the physical substance of the Outer Planes are. It certainly seems like Gehenna is full of fire, after all. I guess maybe it's "pseudo" fire, in which case I guess everything on the Inner could have "pseudo" belief. That or they didn't start off with belief, and maybe it slowly bled through from the Outer through the Astral, and then trickled in through the Prime to the Ethereal, and finally some of it might have been dumped into the Inner. Or maybe it was carried in by Planar travelers and spread like a disease. I don't know. Personally I've always felt that not clearly addressing these issues were some of Planescape's greatest faults.
Um, I didn't say the inner planes created the entire universe.
I said that they could have created things besides the Prime or that there could exist things independent of them. Your response was something like, "No, they didn't create what they didn't create." Your response is basically, if it is supposed to refute my statement, that nothing can exist independant of the Inner, thus the Inner give rise to everything. Of course, that still doesn't refute the possibility of it creating something other than the Prime.
Good, you try to use reductio ad absurdum on what I said about the inner planes and outer planes. Now, try to argue what I said about both of them. Belief may have created a realm of pure thought. But if nothing created a realm of pure thought, then that does mean that one can't exist.
From what I remember you said that the Inner created the Prime and the Prime lead to the Outer. I was simply saying that there could be more to it than this. The Inner could lead to something besides the Prime that the Planescape multiverse is not aware of. Likewise, there could be a set of Planes that exist independently of any of the known groups of planes in Planescape. That doesn't mean they necessarily come from nowhere (even though you're arguement doesn't include a statement on where the Inner Planes came from), that just means that something could exist apart from any of the known planar groupings. Also, if you get into the whole "something can't arise from nothing" idea then you need an infinite number of creative sources. Something created the Inner, and that something was made by something else, etc. Planescape doesn't include any of these things. Coming up with the source of the Inner Planes would have been somewhat in keeping with the original spirit of this thread. You could also just say that they are "eternal" or something like that.
Well, you saidThe outer planes are shaped by belief. Something else like the outer planes couldn't exist, because belief shapes the outer planes, not your hypothetical planes.
Why do you keep assuming that the only things that can possibly exist are the ones in the Planescape boxed set? It's like you try to justify that those are all the Planes that exist because those are all the Planes that exist. Yes, I agree that belief helps shape the Outer Planes. Why does this mean that belief can't create something else? You say that belief does not shape my hypothetical planes, but you have no basis for that statement. The whole point of my argument was that there could be other things that exist, that could even come from the same sources, that we are simply unaware of. There is nothing that denies the possibility of their existence, and you haven't even provided an argument against them, you just assume that they don't exist.
As for 'something completely independent of the Prime', what do you mean? A plane with access to the ethereal and astral planes is prime. If whatever you mean has only ethereal access, it is a demiplane; if it has only astral access, it is an outher plane.
No, you don't know that. You know that the Prime Plane has access to the Ethereal and Astral. That doesn't mean that all planes with access to the Ethereal and Astral are the Prime, or part of it. The Prime is just the only one we know of. There's no reason why there couldn't be others. Same is true for your argument of bordering astral and ethereal Planes (especially the ethereal, since the Inner Planes, to my knowledge, are not demiplanes). Furthermore, there is no reason why you couldn't have a plane somewhere that borders neither the astral nor the ethereal.
Again, this seems contradictory. You would seem to agree that without belief, the outer planes could not exist. Doesn't it make sense then, that they are built of belief, if they are belief?
Hm, okay, I can see your point here. Let me try to clarify. The Outer Planes would be built of belief in the same way that the Prime is built largely of Hydrogen and dirt. It is a kind of "substance" as far as they go. This belief "substance" however, exists independent of the beliefs from the Prime. So the Planes themselves are composed of belief, but do not seem to actually depend on the belief of others (or at least not Primes). It could be that in some way the Planes have a life of their own and can be self-sustaining to some degree, but are also fed and shaped by the belief of sentient beings. In any case, it still seems true that the existence of the Outer Planes predates the existence of sentient Primes. Whether or not they predate the existence of their own indigenous lifeforms, like Archons or Tanar'ri, I couldn't say. Perhaps both Plane and denizens have always existed, but I find it more likely that if one predated the other, that Mount Celestia (or whatever its primeval form was) existed before Archons, and gave birth to them in some sort of way, rather than Archons existing in some nowhere place and thinking Mount Celestia into existence.
You apparently didn't read what I posted. Belief created the outer planes. If people on the outer planes have belief, that affects the outer planes. Belief doesn't affect some hypothetical planes just because the believers are in the outer planes.
I still don't believe that belief created the Outer. Not the way you seem to be suggesting. In any case though, I agree that belief affects the Outer Planes. However, I don't see why belief couldn't affect "some hypothetical planes." That seems to just be an assumption, kind of like your one that anything bordering both the Astral and Ethereal must be the Prime. It's like you're trying to prove that no other planes exist besides the ones in the Planescape campaign setting by assuming that no other planes exist besides the ones in the campaign setting. Even from within your argument that belief created the Outer Planes, you haven't provided any reasons for why belief couldn't create something else as well. You haven't provided any kind of explanation for why belief can create one and only one kind of plane.
Your argument (omitting a few obstructing words), is "." You don't have a point.
You wrote
Then read my proof again. If Object X does not exist in the universe, Object X does not exist. By the law of the excluded middle, we can say with equal truth value: If Object X exists outside of the universe, Object X does not exist.
My point was that you said "Object X exists", not "might" or "may" or "if". You said it exists. If you assume it exists, it exists. If you assume it exists outside the universe, it exists outside the universe. If this conflicts with your premise (in this case, that nothing exists outside the universe), then you have a paradox and cannot arrive at a definitely true conclusion. Concluding that object X cannot exist when you've already stated that it does is faulty and assumes that your premis is somehow more true than the statement. If we're allowed to go back and change previous elements of your argument to favor a certain conclusion, then concluding that "Object X exists outside the universe, therefore the universe does not contain all that exists" is equally valid (which is not valid at all, really). For someone so hung up on the correct use of words, I would expect you to do better.
You apparently don't understand the law of the excluded middle. For the statement "Object X does not exist inside the universe", there is an equal statement "Object X exists outside the universe". If your only attack against my logic is that you don't like how it's phrased, I wouldn't admit to others. My definition of universe encompasses everything, and if, for some reason, people do not believe that the word 'universe' means what it means, I used the word 'multiverse' in my proof. There are plenty of people who do agree with my definition. Some people will object to anything, but that is not a valid reason to declare all logic invalid, and all proofs unsound.
No, I'm not familiar with the "law of the excluded middle." I don't really care either. Maybe it isn't valid in this kind of situation or you aren't using it correctly. People misuse Okham's Razor all the time (it was horribly misused in the movie Contact). Just because you can throw terms around doesn't mean you're logic is perfectly sound or irrefutable by those who don't know the terms. What I know is that your previous "proof" breaks down thusly:
a) Nothing exists outside of the universe.
b) Object X exists outside of the uinverse.
c) Therefore, Object X does not exist.
Which is faulty, because you have no basis for assuming that the truth of a somehow overrides the truth of b. There is no actual conclusion for this situation.
How can you include Plato's realm in a Planescape campaign?
Well, in case you weren't paying attention, weird ideas like this were kind of what the original topic of this thread was about.
You can't go there.
What does have to do with whether or not it exists?
You haven't proved anything that contradicts me, for two reasons: 1.) I've proven that nothing exists outside of the Planescape multiverse that is part of the Planescape multiverse,
Huh? Yes, if something is part of the Planescape multiverse, it does not exist outside of it. That doesn't mean that nothing can exist outside of the Planescape multiverse. That's like saying nothing exists outside of the moon that is part of the moon. Of course not, because then it wouldn't be part of the moon. But that doesn't mean there are plenty of things out there that simply are not part of the moon.
and 2.) What if I hypothesize a plane that is called Mechanus, but is, in fact, very chaotic? This doesn't really fit with the Planescape cosmology, but that doesn't prove me wrong. One could say such a thing as the chaotic Mechanus are outside the Planescape multiverse, because I've proven this is synonymous with saying these things don't exist.
I don't really understand what you're saying here. Yes, you can propose the idea of a chaotic plane that is challed Mechanus and is not part of the Planescape cosmology (you could also stick it somewhere in Limbo or another chaotic aligned plane). I don't see where the "you can say it is outside the Planescape multiverse because that means it doesn't exist" part fits in, except if you're assuming that the plane doesn't actually exist, which would kind of defeat the purpose of hypothesizing its existence in the first place.
No, Planescape is a different experience than other role-playing worlds, but I don't suggest it is an escape from boredom. In Forgotten Realms, if the party explored all of Toril in a quick, survey campaign, and then the DM created a new continent in a flash of magic, I would feel sorry for those people, as I feel sorry for those who create new planes in a flash of magic for something new to explore, when there is certainly still Planescape to be had.
You must feel incredibly sorry for all RPG game designers then. I mean, if you feel sorry for people who create new portions of worlds or new realms of existence, then it sounds like if things were up to you we would have never expanded beyond the Greyhawk campaign setting.
Anyway, I think that DMs will sometimes like to create their own kingdoms or dimensions or hells within a setting their already running, and I really can't see what is wrong with doing something like that. Maybe you just don't like people using their imagination or something. Why should a DM running a game in a certain campaign setting be restricted to only by the published material for it? Like I mentioned before, if RPG designers (who are almost always gamers first) had that kind of mentality, the RPG industry wouldn't be anywhere near as diverse as it is today.
Originally posted by mrgoat
You need to take arguments on the internet a lot less seriously then. C'mon man, it's just a fun troll. Don't take it so hard. I'm suprised the WizO's haven't closed this thing yet.
Hijacking a thread is very bad form, and trolls are obnoxious. If you're actually *trying* to get the thread closed just for your own amusement, then you're guilty of every charge that Soulsong made.
Originally posted by RandomPrecision
I go by the definition that I inferred from the Planescape books, which appears to be the definition of the author of this thread.
I don't have my PS books on hand to reference, but I don't know how you could use them to say that the "correct" definition of multiverse is "everything that exists" as opposed to "all the planes described in the Planescape setting." Anyway, when I spoke of people having a different definition, I was referring to Freefall and Sildatorak, both of whom stated quite clearly that they don't agree with your definition of multiverse.
The whole point I was trying to get across was that this isn't about logic, it's about semantics, and arguments about semantics are usually a waste of time. Judging from the care you took to correct my terminology, this went completely over your head. Either that, or you just like to hear yourself talk. In any case, I will now practice what I preach and stop discussing the matter.
A plea to anyone who cares about the original intent of the thread: don't feed the trolls. If we starve them out, maybe we can actually get the thread back on-topic.
Originally posted by Soulsong
Dimensions vs. Planes of Existence in Game
I like the idea of having both of these available in the game as areas of exploration, mystery, and challenges. Often these two ideas are confused or used interchangeably. I prefer to treat these as beng completely different and independent of each other. The default dimensional set is 3 spacial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension. Some might suggest that the ethereal/astral/inner planes are the 5th dimension, as I believe 1e psionics may have noted. I do not like this because it links Planes and dimensions. If they are the same, that removes the other as an option.
One of my favorite essays on the Mimir is the one on the nine dimensions of the planes.
Is the Plane of Imprisonment something you made up yourself, or did you get it from canon material?
Wyvern
Hijacking a thread is very bad form, and trolls are obnoxious. If you're actually *trying* to get the thread closed just for your own amusement, then you're guilty of every charge that Soulsong made.
Or maybe my real goal is to make a point with the form of the argument, rather than the content. Just maybe.
........................................................................................................
Exactly Freefall! That was the entire point of me begining this thread! The definition of Multiverse is the one presented in Planescape, that being "All the Planes of the Planescape cosmology".
There could very well be other Planes created by the Inner, these could be "Alternate Primes"(Which are similiar to the Prime, but have different laws of physics) or somewhere else entirely.
There could also be "Elsegroups" as Incenjucuar termed quite appriaprely. These being groups of Planes like the Outer or Inner Planes, that revolve around something other than Alignment or the Elements.
The above is exactly what I had in mind when I created this thread, I had no idea that Dictionary afficionados would come in and change the Thread's theme from its original purpose. Oh well. It has been a learning expierence either way, and I hope this thread(or the "sequel" thread which appeared recently), continues to be a interest to all.
I have long-assumed that there is more within the Inner Planes (THE Inner Plane, or Source, as I like to call it), and beyond the outer, the realm of the risen deities (For those deities that transcend overgod status, as many Sumerian deities may have, and lose the need of belief.).
The Ethereal has also been hinted at containing other cosmologies. The Deep Ethereal holds many mysteries.
You should begin your own thread then and carry the point there, as its still hijacking and unfair to the original author. I think it'd be more peaceful. And it is kinda mean to get someone else's thread closed, I'm sure we could all troll for fun and ruin the messageboards.
On the other hand, threads are meant to be discussions that lead to tangents. But this seems more of a forced tangent that's deviated from the original intent. Your arguments are definitely interesting, but they belong in a separate thread.
"Now purhaps you'd like an item from my treasure hoard for your troubles. Mortals"
Its true, I hadn't exactly thought of that on this thread Injenjucuar. There could be more Inner Planes(Quasi-Exotica, and Elemental Wood and its Para and Quasi Planes for instance). Its clear that there is much more to the Multiverse than meets the eye, and the known and commonly accepted Multiverse is not just all there is. There just may be an infinitiy of infinitite existences just waiting to be discovered....Perhaps we might even find the darks on the Lady of Pain, such as her homeplane, or even that she has siblings!(Shivers)
You should begin your own thread then and carry the point there, as its still hijacking and unfair to the original author.
And? He doesn't own the thread. He gets the first post. That's all. I'm really tired of people complaining about "hijacking", when it's nothing but the normal course of conversation. It's not like I came in here intending to derail this discussion, I just made a point, and other people wouldn't shut up and stop responding to me when it was way past the appropriate point to do so. It's not my responsibility to control anyone else's impluses. I mean, hell, I've been trying to leave this thread alone for three pages now, and people keep posting things that demand a response.
I'm sure we could all troll for fun and ruin the messageboards.
Not if the admins would do their job. Besides, these boards were pretty well and truly ruined long before I started posting here. And if we all troll for fun, we'd all be having fun. That's not exactly ruining the boards. Maybe we need more trolling, to keep people on their toes. There's no better way to make a board good than to have decent trolls. (I'm speaking with the real meaning of the word, the good one.)
Originally posted by Wyvern76
Is the Plane of Imprisonment something you made up yourself, or did you get it from canon material?
This is a reference from the 1e Manual of the Planes I believe.
It has been a while, but I think that there was reference to adventurers coming upon a purple planar curtain in the deep ethereal that was supposedly the prison of a (over?) god that all other gods (good and evil) banned together to banish in eons past. I suppose that the case could be made for this being Tharizdun, as Greyhawk was the main campaign at that time, but I only think this makes sense if you are using a Gord the Rogue type mythology, where there are several uber type gods that act to keep the balance until Tharizdun comes back. No one that went through this curtain ever came out. 15 years ago, in one of my few spats of DMing, the party went ethereal in an ADND conversion of the Basic DND module Sabre River. One of my PCs stumbled upon this curtain, and despite my clear signs that it was an encounter of avoidance, she stuck her hand through. The other PCs eventually found her mindlessly chanting Zoqan (My idea of this being at the time, not to be confused with the Dragon God Zorquan). She rolled up a new character after that. This was more or less a one shot mid-high level adventure.
I didn't think of the timeless nature of this until the other night as I was posting. A plane without time would make an ideal prison.
Here is my last response on this threads "language" issue.
Artistry is awesome. Artistry is all about conveying meaning. Language can be used to create art. Art always entails language. Audial (pure sound that conveys emotive and associative meaning), Verbal (not just sound, but sound with a layer of definition and all the subtleties that the connection to the sound of the word may generate), Lingual (not random words stuck together, but collections of words into coherent patterns of thought and an intention to convey meaning to another or ones self. This meaning can be purely artistic. It might be partially or completely emotive as poetry often is. It might be entirely subjective or intended for an audience to find their own meaning, but make no mistake, it always has meaning.) Without meaning, there is no purpose for the creation of sound, sign, character, word, sentence, language or art. Beautiful language conveys the meaning of beauty. If someone interprets additional or erroneous meaning, that does not negate the initial intention of meaning. I use language to convey beauty. I use language to convey anguish or fear or understanding of a technical issue. I convey compassion, wrath, humor, disgust, joy, and comfort. I can string words together without meaning, but then I am not using language. I may be using words, but not language. I can string letters together, but I am not necessarily using words. I would ask for an example of language without meaning, but I am already ashamed that I am responding to these assertions and I am sure you would claim you had no meaning regardless of how silly that would sound.
You are free to disagree.
You are free to post as you wish.
You are free to show respect or disrespect for the thoughts, will, and freedoms of others.
I ask you to show more respect than you currently are.
If you do not like the fact that someone is using a word that you think should be some other word or phrase, when you know what is meant, and you can be confident that everyone else in the discussion knows what is meant, then please do a simple mental search and replace for that word with the word or phrase of your choosing. If you do not like "Universe", replace it with "Universe minus other planes of existence". if you do not like "Multiverse", use "Universe minus all of the known planes except the Far Realm". Please do these simple things and join in the discussion. I am sure that you have real ideas to contribute.
Issue Solved,
Wittgenstein laughing in disbelief.
"Isn't it interesting how people who claim to have found additional Planes in our fair Multiverse are labeled "Barmy". For instance, nearly everyone in Sigil called that poor old man insane for claiming that he visited the Ordial Plane. I wonder if people gave the same reaction when the Ethereal or Astral was first discovered?"