RJ 17 said:
DoPo said:
there are an infinite amount of universes but in the end Elizabeth works on all of them. Or, at least on a subset of the those[footnote]still infinite, however, just for the record[/footnote].
Pretty sure that's wrong. If you're claiming she's working with a subset of infinity, that by definition means a smaller section of infinity which in turn means that it's finite, not infinite.
1. How many numbers are there?
Answer: Infinite
2. How many integers are there?
Answer: Infinite
3. How many even integers are there?
Answer: Infinite.
I can't fathom how you can claim there is a finite amount of odd, or even, or prime, or rational or whatever numbers are a finite amount. They aren't. They simply are different sets all containing infinite members.
RJ 17 said:
and, as I pointed out, simply impossible to begin with.
...this remains the basis of my point.
The basis of your point is incorrect. It requires ALL BOOKERS EVER to both succeed
and be willing to go through with Elizabeth's plan. This is very simply not the case, given that all Bookers ever do NOT make it to begin with. Your point also relies on simply assuming that requirement with evidence pointing to the contrary about. And when faced with the contradiction, you don't deem the assumption incorrect and continue working with the model, you simply rule it out.
RJ 17 said:
The game implies that by taking Booker back to the baptism and drowning him - even assuming that Elizabeth has the power to make this crucial point in time some sort of cosmic nexus to which every possible Booker is bound (which is the only way you could erase all Comstocks by drowning a single Booker) - all Comstocks will die with him. This would indicate that she doesn't just "tweak" a variable, but rather she has taken what was a variable - Booker's choice to accept the baptism or reject it - and turned it into a constant: all Bookers at all baptisms decide to accept being drown.
Incorrect, only the (future) Comstocks die. So in some cases Booker refuses, in other, dies.
RJ 17 said:
Why not? Why is that choice exempt when we've seen plenty of other instances in which choices did create an alternate universe?
Why would it create a new universe? Why do you assume each one is created at every variable? You simply have a whole bunch of universes with the different variables set differently.
RJ 17 said:
For example: the choice to accept the baptism or reject it. Why does that choice create two universes yet the choice to accept being drown or refuse to be drown doesn't?
You, again, assume there was one universe that got split into two. First of all, that's wrong, as there is way more than two. Second, I'm pretty sure, it went more like this: there were 1000 universes[footnote]a random illustrative number[/footnote] to begin with. And in some of them, say, 400[footnote]non-even split chosen to simply have two differnt numbers for illustrative purposes, otherwise the two numbers are annoingly the same[/foootnote], Booker accepts the baptism and becomes Comstock. In another 600 universes, Booker rejects the baptism. Further variations ensue. I am fairly sure this was heavily alluded to in-game somewhere, but I can't recall the exact event/context to it.
RJ 17 said:
Why are some choices apparently "constants" which implies a denial of free will while other choices are "variables" which implies the existence of free will?
There are multiple answers. While still talking the game, free will doesn't need to be consistent everywhere. Lots of works do play with fate being present and some people/entities/events being exempt from that. Notably, there is Legacy of Kain, where Raziel is the only entity possessing free will in the world and as such, can influence history which is pre-written. Yet, at the same time, there is an "artificial" way to also alter it, which is to bring together two instances of the exact same item together - in Blood Omen, this was a major plot point that gave the start of the series and involved bringing two of the titular Soul Reaver from later games. More recent games that explored (or at least mentioned) something similar are Kingdoms of Amalur (the main hero is the Fateless one, who can do whatever he likes), and Divinity: Original Sin (the main heroes don't actually exist on the tapestry of time).
But from a more meta analysis, the significance of the "constants and variables" is an allusion to the game itself. And games themselves in general. Every player plays the same game, however, they all have "constants" which are usually plot events (end of missions, cinematics, etc) and variables (anything involving player choice, including gameplay) thus ending with, in theory, infinite different variations of the game. It is exploring exactly this idea and throwing into the mix differnt games still part of the same - "they all start with a man and a lighthouse and there is a city. Sometimes it's underwater, sometimes it's in the skies". Elizabeth says something to this effect which very clearly tied Bioshock Infinite with the first Bioshock. It's not only different instances of the same game played that form these "universes" - it's the variations of the same story, as story structure is really similar in a lot of cases.
CrystalShadow said:
See, here's where you're creating a problem. 'You' in this example is an outside force. In terms of what qualifies as deterministic in this example, you, and your thought processes exist outside of the deterministic universe you are influencing.
If you were an actual xcom general, you wouldn't have the freedom of thought to change the orders you gave, and the mission would play out the same way unless something else happened to first influence your thought process, and thus change the orders given]
*bangs head into a wall*
I KNOW. I EVEN KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN. AND I KNOW YOU KNOW AS WELL. DID YOU DO IT ON PUPOSE?
Yes, this was just an example. It was used to illustrate the principle. No, things in real life would not turn out that way. Because that is an example, not real life. Furthermore, we sort of don't have the ability to travel back in time in real life, if you haven't noticed. Not yet, anyway.
So, with this in mind, would you mind using the example as one, not drilling into the non-possibilities of implementing it in real life.
So this is an illustration of why exactly free will doesn't clash with determinism. You've changed the parameters, you now get a different outcome. A completely predictable outcome - more than "I told you you shouldn't do that", it's an absolutely repeatable experiment yielding the exact same results any time it's reran with the same input. Change the input, that changes the outcome but, again, you can repeat with the changed input and get the same (changed) outcome.
Yes, but your example is non-deterministic, because you are including elements that exist outside of the universe you are using for your example.
That is the basic problem with the very idea of free will. To have any in a deterministic universe, you must have some influence on the universe that exists
outside of the universe itself. The deterministic universe itself is incapable of changing itself.
CrystalShadow said:
Except it's not. Pandora's actions are constrained by the exact state of the universe at the moment they decide to travel back in time. The choice she makes is deterministic, and has only one possible outcome.
Again, I don't know if you didn't understand it, or you're doing it on purpose. As I said, Pandora's actions are not constrained in the sense that they can NEVER do something. If we use the 12 Monkeys scenario - Pandora is free to choose to go and stop Bruce Willis from going back in time. Yes, her decisions are based on the set of inputs, however, she
can reach that decision. Unbound decision. On the other hand, we could have Pandora absolutely never ever be able to take that course of action, even if we were someshow able to feed all possible inputs. This would mean that the decision reached is ruled out on some form of meta level. My initial question was, why, and how - what is the force responsible for that, were that the case? Because, otherwise, what happens if she was to stop Bruce Willis?