You seem to have very strong convictions toward this, so I'm not going to have an extended argument with you, although I will leave you with my point of view;
I feel as though I just read about half a dozen paragraphs misinterpreting BSI to follow the real-life many worlds interpretation, instead of its own well-established, internally consistent system of infinites with less variation than the many world interpretation.
Variables and constants also aren't sweeping rules for all characters, gender for example. It is a constant for some, but not others.
And lastly I think it important to note that universe of BSI treats all iterations of a person as the SAME person with one overriding mind that is intrinsically linked to all its own variations.
Comstock and Dewitt
are NOT individuals. That is one of the reasons why choice is such an important theme to the game.
All of its conflict arises from poor choice or underestimating personal importance, and the ramifications thereof. Only when a certain character takes full responsibility for their life
or lives
and their guilt, when stronger choices are made, can anything be resolved.
In my view, the necklaces, though they provide no real consequence, are there to convey to the player and establish that choice *does* make a difference in BSI's universe, because they Lutece is always surprised by the choice you make. I believe the writers included this scene specifically to convey that message; reality is mutable by personal choices.
You seem to have very strong convictions toward this, so I'm not going to have an extended argument with you, although I will leave you with my point of view;
I feel as though I just read about half a dozen paragraphs misinterpreting BSI to follow the real-life many worlds interpretation, instead of its own well-established, internally consistent system of infinites with less variation than the many world interpretation.
Variables and constants also aren't sweeping rules for all characters, gender for example. It is a constant for some, but not others.
And lastly I think it important to note that universe of BSI treats all iterations of a person as the SAME person with one overriding mind that is intrinsically linked to all its own variations.
Comstock and Dewitt
are NOT individuals. That is one of the reasons why choice is such an important theme to the game.
All of its conflict arises from poor choice or underestimating personal importance, and the ramifications thereof. Only when a certain character takes full responsibility for their life
or lives
and their guilt, when stronger choices are made, can anything be resolved.
In my view, the necklaces, though they provide no real consequence, are there to convey to the player and establish that choice *does* make a difference in BSI's universe, because they Lutece is always surprised by the choice you make. I believe the writers included this scene specifically to convey that message; reality is mutable by personal choices.
I now have to respond to this. Because really this is what I am talking about. Speculation and the pretense of being coherent with itself. The ideology in BSI is not consistent, it is sloppy writing that pretends to be high brow. For example let's take your wording for BSI's multiverse.
I cannot comprehend how you can write sentences like this: "---- instead of its own well-established, internally consistent system of infinites with less variation than the many world interpretation."
A consistent system of INFINITIES (not infinites, infinite is an adj), with LESS VARIATION. As opposed to what. Other INFINITIES? An infinity is an non measurable unit. Something that has no less or more. There is no more or less variety because as we know the choice is the deciding factor therefore the amount of choices are the method by which the variation is decided. Seeing as the choices are infinite in their number and branching therefore the variation are also infinite. They cannot be or more or less when the determining factor is an infinity.
The only difference here is that BSI claims certain set values. These set values do not change the variability around those values which is still an infinite number.
My reasoning is done given the rules of the game. I refuse to make any assumptions outside of the things the game tells us. A constant means that it is an intricate requirement for something. In other words if Comstock being a man is a requirement then why does he have to be a man? No answer. You see a woman would have been able to perform the same role so there is no logical reason for it to be a constant. A female Comstock talking of a Virginal Birth of the Lamb of God! Sound familiar? I think religious zealots all over Columbia would have soiled their pants over a literal Second Coming. So Comstock being a man is not an essential constant for the story, I think Comstock being a woman would have actually been a better narrative parallel to the Luteces. Where one of the Luteces shows remorse and wants to set things right, similar to one of the Bookers.
The lighthouse, the city and the man, these constants make sense AND are explicitly named. The rest is just player speculation. After all think of Bioshock, the two main antagonists are male. Bioshock 2 also introduced a woman as the main antagonist which was also a different reality version of Rapture if we go with the BSI plot, and Infinite has a female counterpart to Comstock, so again why can Comstock not be a woman? Rapture is apparently the same in every way, so really the only constants here are again the three given by Elizabeth. The rest is player speculation.
You cannot treat the different iterations of people as the same person with one mind. Yes BSI does do that, but at the same time this would be impossible because each of them make different choices and have them be one overlapping conscience would cause their minds to explode because of the subconscious dissonance. Think of it as a split personality that simultaneously experiences and does everything. Have you seen a person suffering from schizophrenia? A consciousness shared across time and space would be similar to hearing an infinite amount of voices at the same time in your head telling you what to think, feel and would cause so much conflict it would drive you insane just by those people existing.
Even worse we saw how a death in a different reality impacted them. According to the same theory, any such experience would then also travel across the multiple parallel worlds, be that pain, loss, emotional harm, suffering, etc. In other words in an infinite amount of worlds where we could die or be harmed in an infinite amount of time at any possible time by the choices made by the person in question OR by the different choices made by others we would be unable to function at all. We would be writhing on the floor asking why, how, when, because of all the possible pain and suffering in every single possible universe ever created that we are experiencing at the same time. You would go insane.
My theory is quite simple, that Elizabeth opened a tear big enough to engulf those other people as well. After all we don't see people you killed OUTSIDE that specific area suffer from the same problems. That is besides the one time with Chinese gun smith, then because the writer forgot that you killed 20 people outside the shop it suddenly doesn't affect everyone, just the gun smith. Similar to the universe where the Vox rebels have taken over. If what we see would be internally consistent with the one consciousness across time and space theory we would have seen people wandering the streets fading in and out of reality in the universe that we first visit the tear that leads to the Vox rebellion universe. However the writer again forgot the effects of being killed in one universe so everyone there was okay despite them being simultaneously killed in a different universe.
How can a character take responsibility for multiple lives, when that person is not an individual making those choices and was forced into living all those lives because every choice has to be made always? You see you now apply individualism when first asserting that instead of individuals they are in fact a shared conscience. There is no choice without individuality, according to your earlier explanation:
"BSI treats all iterations of a person as the SAME person with one overriding mind that is intrinsically linked to all its own variations."
There is no individual to MAKE those choices. Whenever a choice is reached the conscience splits itself across all possible options automatically. There is no active decision making because every decision will be made regardless of the choice of the non existing individual. There is no personal importance either because there are no individuals simply a shared consciousness according to your explanation. It should not matter which choice this consciousness makes because it makes EVERY choice automatically.
If the Luteces are ALWAYS surprised then your choice has NO CONSEQUENCE because the end result is ALWAYS surprise. The same with all your other player choices. They have no consequence because they do not influence the story, they do not even influence the way your AI partner treats you. She will say the same things every time. In fact the AI partner will sometimes hilariously find money right after a giant emotional scene shattering her consistency as a character.
Now you are of course allowed to enjoy this game and think it is really smart and good and all the jolly things in the world. But don't pretend like there exist no holes or inconsistencies in their pop-science version of alternate realities.
You seem to have very strong convictions toward this, so I'm not going to have an extended argument with you, although I will leave you with my point of view;
I feel as though I just read about half a dozen paragraphs misinterpreting BSI to follow the real-life many worlds interpretation, instead of its own well-established, internally consistent system of infinites with less variation than the many world interpretation.
Variables and constants also aren't sweeping rules for all characters, gender for example. It is a constant for some, but not others.
And lastly I think it important to note that universe of BSI treats all iterations of a person as the SAME person with one overriding mind that is intrinsically linked to all its own variations.
Comstock and Dewitt
are NOT individuals. That is one of the reasons why choice is such an important theme to the game.
All of its conflict arises from poor choice or underestimating personal importance, and the ramifications thereof. Only when a certain character takes full responsibility for their life
or lives
and their guilt, when stronger choices are made, can anything be resolved.
In my view, the necklaces, though they provide no real consequence, are there to convey to the player and establish that choice *does* make a difference in BSI's universe, because they Lutece is always surprised by the choice you make. I believe the writers included this scene specifically to convey that message; reality is mutable by personal choices.
I now have to respond to this. Because really this is what I am talking about. Speculation and the pretense of being coherent with itself. The ideology in BSI is not consistent, it is sloppy writing that pretends to be high brow. For example let's take your wording for BSI's multiverse.
I cannot comprehend how you can write sentences like this: "---- instead of its own well-established, internally consistent system of infinites with less variation than the many world interpretation."
A CONSISTENT SYSTEM of INFINITIES (not infinites, infinite is an adj), with LESS VARIATION. As opposed to what. Other INFINITIES? How is an UNKNOWN, which is what an INFINITY is, an unknown quantity, or immeasurable and therefore unknown, consistent? You see it is UNKNOWN. Therefore you cannot make any prediction or guess of it's consistency not even with itself. To arrange a SYSTEM of INFINITIES is to make a group of interrelated, interacting or interdependent UNKNOWNS.
An infinity is, as stated earlier, a non measurable unit. Something that has no less or more. There is no more or less variety because as we know the choice is the deciding factor therefore the amount of choices are the method by which the variation is decided. Seeing as the choices are infinite in their number and branching therefore the variation are also infinite. They cannot be or more or less when the determining factor is an infinity.
The only difference here is that BSI claims certain set values. These set values do not change the variability around those values which is still an infinite number.
My reasoning is done given the rules of the game. I refuse to make any assumptions outside of the things the game tells us. A constant means that it is an intricate requirement for something. In other words if Comstock being a man is a requirement then why does he have to be a man? No answer. You see a woman would have been able to perform the same role so there is no logical reason for it to be a constant. A female Comstock talking of a Virginal Birth of the Lamb of God! Sound familiar? I think religious zealots all over Columbia would have soiled their pants over a literal Second Coming. So Comstock being a man is not an essential constant for the story, I think Comstock being a woman would have actually been a better narrative parallel to the Luteces. Where one of the Luteces shows remorse and wants to set things right, similar to one of the Bookers.
The lighthouse, the city and the man, these constants make sense AND are explicitly named. The rest is just player speculation. After all think of Bioshock, the two main antagonists are male. Bioshock 2 also introduced a woman as the main antagonist which was also a different reality version of Rapture if we go with the BSI plot, and Infinite has a female counterpart to Comstock, so again why can Comstock not be a woman? Rapture is apparently the same in every way, so really the only constants here are again the three given by Elizabeth. The rest is player speculation.
You cannot treat the different iterations of people as the same person with one mind. Yes BSI does do that, but at the same time this would be impossible because each of them make different choices and have them be one overlapping conscience would cause their minds to explode because of the subconscious dissonance. Think of it as a split personality that simultaneously experiences and does everything. Have you seen a person suffering from schizophrenia? A consciousness shared across time and space would be similar to hearing an infinite amount of voices at the same time in your head telling you what to think, feel and would cause so much conflict it would drive you insane just by those people existing.
Even worse we saw how a death in a different reality impacted them. According to the same theory, any such experience would then also travel across the multiple parallel worlds, be that pain, loss, emotional harm, suffering, etc. In other words in an infinite amount of worlds where we could die or be harmed in an infinite amount of time at any possible time by the choices made by the person in question OR by the different choices made by others we would be unable to function at all. We would be writhing on the floor asking why, how, when, because of all the possible pain and suffering in every single possible universe ever created that we are experiencing at the same time. You would go insane.
My theory is quite simple, that Elizabeth opened a tear big enough to engulf those other people as well. After all we don't see people you killed OUTSIDE that specific area suffer from the same problems. That is besides the one time with Chinese gun smith, then because the writer forgot that you killed 20 people outside the shop it suddenly doesn't affect everyone, just the gun smith. Similar to the universe where the Vox rebels have taken over. If what we see would be internally consistent with the one consciousness across time and space theory we would have seen people wandering the streets fading in and out of reality in the universe that we first visit the tear that leads to the Vox rebellion universe. However the writer again forgot the effects of being killed in one universe so everyone there was okay despite them being simultaneously killed in a different universe.
How can a character take responsibility for multiple lives, when that person is not an individual making those choices and was forced into living all those lives because every choice has to be made always? You see you now apply individualism when first asserting that instead of individuals they are in fact a shared conscience. There is no choice without individuality, something that does not exist in BSI according to your earlier explanation:
"BSI treats all iterations of a person as the SAME person with one overriding mind that is intrinsically linked to all its own variations."
There is no individual to MAKE those choices. Whenever a choice is reached the conscience splits itself across all possible options automatically. There is no active decision making because every decision will be made regardless of the choice of the non existing individual. There is no personal importance either because there are no individuals simply a shared consciousness according to your explanation. It should not matter which choice this consciousness makes because it makes EVERY choice automatically.
Even worse I think there IS actually one choice in the game that DOES change something, it is the ONLY one and worst of all it still changes nothing in the character dynamic or consequent events. This was a chance to show that choice really does matter. However the entire game gives you nothing but an illusion of choice and then tells you that there is only one option. This game that is supposedly about how choice changes you, constantly gives no consequence or even a change in interaction based upon your choices. Even if the game perfectly conveyed that it was about how accepting things and making the right choice was the central theme, the entire game around it fails to reflect that
If the Luteces are ALWAYS surprised then your choice has NO CONSEQUENCE because the end result is ALWAYS surprise. The same with all your other player choices. They have no consequence because they do not influence the story, they do not even influence the way your AI partner treats you. She will say the same things every time and act the same way towards you at plot critical intervals.
Now you are of course allowed to enjoy this game and think it is really smart and good and all the jolly things in the world. I to enjoyed the game though I came to the conclusion that it was the poor man's Bioshock with pilfered gameplay with failed new ideas that were not exploited to their best potential or which BREAK the game. See Skyrail and Handyman, the two mortal enemies.
However don't pretend like there exist no plot holes or inconsistencies in their pop-science version of alternate realities. It is after all written by a writer, a person concerned with characters, plot and theme. Not with creating scientific model propositions for parallel dimension universes.
Also all this talk has given me the urge to go re-watch Sliders. Should be fun to rewatch some good old 90's TV.
Yes, exactly. It's kind of fundamental to calculus.
It's like this; (works this way in several real multiverse interpretations too)
Universes work on probability, so even though there are infinite versions of a universe, some things are so unlikely to happen that it would take longer than the heat death of the universe for them to actually occur.
Like someone randomly teleporting from earth to the moon. There probably isn't a universe like that.
In BSI's multiverse, probabilities are just such to allow fewer variations.
------
The reason the game always plays out the same way is because it is a game. I'm sorry if you're upset with that, but I bought BSI expecting a video game.
Yes, exactly. It's kind of fundamental to calculus.
It's like this; (works this way in several real multiverse interpretations too)
Universes work on probability, so even though there are infinite versions of a universe, some things are so unlikely to happen that it would take longer than the heat death of the universe for them to actually occur.
Like someone randomly teleporting from earth to the moon. There probably isn't a universe like that.
In BSI's multiverse, probabilities are just such to allow fewer variations.
------
The reason the game always plays out the same way is because it is a game. I'm sorry if you're upset with that, but I bought BSI expecting a video game.
So your argument is that an improbability, does not happen because of the fact that it is an improbability somehow gives an infinite amount of possibilities, of which the probability of each possibility is an absolute unknown, a certain order of probability in which they might happen and therefore there is a finite amount of universes, because the probability for all the possibilities to occur in a single universe before it ends would be 0.
The first step here is to even calculate the probabilities and what is an acceptable probability. Which is impossible because both of those and the amount of universes is unknown. So good luck doing that. I would also like to know how you came to the conclusion that a man being teleported to the moon is so improbable that it will never happen in the next few billion years. You see you don't know how often the event is simulated, or how many times the same event is simulated at the same time.
For example let's take the BSI coin flip as a probability experiment.
If I flip a coin and it lands on it's side 0.0562% of the time. Then the speed and the amount of coins I can flip simultaneously affect the time between one landing on it's side. You see each coin has the exact same probability, so flipping 100 coins at the same time is essentially similar to flipping one coin a hundred times. Which again highlights how absurd it is to say that a probability will be guaranteed to take a long time. You see it is a probability. It might happen at the first try or at the millionth try, each try has an equal probability and therefore no actual reliable or even predictable time constraint.
You then go on to completely ignore the fact that every possible combination of every possibility already exists in a separate universe, meaning that time is completely irrelevant because we are not working with just one universe, but an infinite amount of universes containing an infinite amount of combination of possibilities. So yeah... it doesn't matter how long it would take to happen by chance in a universe, it will still happen if the probability is not 0 because every possibility will lead to a separate universe where it exists.
In this equation time is not a factor. The only factor that matters is if there is probability so whilst I am going to commit a horrible faux pas by claiming a percentage of an infinite, if there is a 0.000000000003223232 chance of someone randomly being sucked into a wormhole and appearing on the moon then 0.0000000000003223232% of the infinite amount of universes will have this event happen in them. See what you made me do? You made me calculate a percentage of an infinity. My math teacher would strangle me if he ever found out about this crime against math.
Can you please just for once. Read back to yourself what you just wrote, before you post it. Please?
Can you also explain how teleporting to the fucking moon is a choice? You see the deciding factor for the branching universes is not actually probability it is the branching of choices. So probability in BSI has no bearing on the amount of universes. The amount of branching choices is the dictating factor. Each choice has an equal probability. So probability even if it governed anything in BSI would be utterly pointless because pA always equals pB.
Also I started to notice something. You see that? Look at what your hand is doing. That motion you are making with your hand? That is called handwaving. You don't get to handwave critique about the game away with "It's just a videogame" you see I like to think that videogames are better than that. I like to belief that they are capable of more than being childrens entertainment or frat boy pass times. If Ken Levine wanted to create something to play without thinking about it he would not waste time creating and I quote "a compelling narrative, believable companions and a memorable experience".
You don't get to handwave critique when you at the same time claim a videogame has a brilliant story. You see my complaint is that they wanted to explore a theme, then did nothing to incorporate that in the gameplay. Other games manage to do that. For example Alpha Protocol, which as a theme also had choice and actually changes dialogue, events and story based on your actions. Alpha Protocol is a shitty game. I will say that despite the fact I love that game to death. A shitty game did a better job at exploring it's theme and incorporating that into gameplay than Bioshock Infinite which I consider to be a good game. You don't get to say that games cannot change based upon your actions when there exist games that change upon your choices about dilemma's in the game's narrative.
I like to believe the creators of BSI are also above saying "Dude, it's like a videogame, don't expect to much of it!".
I bought a game. I played a game. The game presented me with a narrative and it's own ideas. The game then asked me to think about them and that is what I did. Something I suspect you neglected before singing praise about the game's brilliance.
EDIT:
A fun probability experiment to see exactly why what you said about probability is incorrect.
Get a bunch of dice. 6 is what I usually use because the chance is 1/6 for each side.
Now take 1 dice and put it in a bowl. Throw that dice as many times as it takes to get a 5. Now repeat that experiment. There is a chance that each time you need the exact same throws to get a 5 but it is more likely that you will need varying amounts of rolls (time) to get a 5.
Now repeat that with 6 dice at once. Put em in a bowl and throw em. Count how many times before you get a 5. Most likely because you just performed 6 dice throws in one instance the amount of throws is less than with just one dice. However again because it is a probability that a dice will land on 5 it could also take LONGER than with one dice, again meaning you cannot ever predict when a probability takes place unless it is exactly 0, which means it will just never happen.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
