Login | Register

A Beginner's Look at The Basic Principle of Tech.

The more interesting threads from the other two forums (mostly the open magical discussion forum) have been moved here, so that those not wanting to hunt through the other forums to find interesting topics, can just look here. This forum section is reply only, so no NEW topics can be placed here. If you want to start a new thread, please do so in the appropriate forum.

Moderators: Contrary, Ogre, LordArt

  • Author
    Message

Postby LordArt » Wed Oct 11, 2006 2:34 pm

Oyama wrote:Does that mean that I haven't come to the conclusion yet? I mean, my containment shell seems like a machine to me. Since you've given some more details about materials, it does seem to match. The shell can be made without the entire engine, it is a machine in and of itself (albeit a very simple one, since it is just one piece), and it has the particular property with or without the engine.


I thought you hadn't at the time I wrote it. However, as you describe things, you're still wondering at what point it's a material. One COULD say, anything below system level as a fast and loose definition. To me, you kinda just KNOW. Meaning, the machines are so small, you don't see them unless your looking for them, it just seems a strange colored material that is textured. To me, that's a material. It doesn't have the "glow" that normal energy has. However, lesser "materials" are more like hard bars of metal/grey material to me, even though "astral metal" looks different. I would bet the shell that you describe kinda looks/feels like that. That it's VERY defined. That's how you can tell if your using a tech material or not. I bet if you looked closer at it, you could see the mini-machines, although I wouldn't expect them to be too complex. I would suspect your inner is framiliar with tech, hence your progress.


Oyama wrote: The way I did it, I simply "raw willed" it to be the way it was, and I suppose maybe that is where I'm going wrong. Honestly, I can't think of other ways to make a material other than "raw willing" them to be that way, i.e- I want it to be that way, so I just will them to be that way.


Keep in mind, casting a tech spell is simply willing it to be. Doing so, normally makes the manifestation be created from your own energy and defaultly powered off you unless you specify otherwise. Keep in mind, when I say "raw will casting", that means using simple brute force/intent/"programing" for a result. Your will is STILL needed to create tech, it's just that your doing a VERY specific pattern/creation, and exerting more of your spiritual hardware.

Oyama wrote: Groping in the dark at square one sucks :( , if you get my meaning.


We all start there. It gets better.

Oyama wrote:I will say that my engine did NOT feel/look like just plain programmed energy. That was really what bewildered me the most about it.


Tech has a distinct look that can't really be described well. Hence the problems in explanation.

Oyama wrote: What really blew my mind was how the machine seemed alive in a way that your average programmed energy ball was not (not alive in that it was sentient or anything, but you get the idea).


That's because it starts working from the moment it exists. Not the full spell of course, but the mini-machines doing their job as a material. So it's semi-active.

Oyama wrote: Theoretically, it also works in the other direction, meaning things can look like this if you look very very closely at a simple machine, trying to figure out what makes it tick at a very "micro-scale," (which is the endless line of thought I described earlier). I don't have the senses nor experience for that though, so for me it remains theoretical.


It does take time. Amps help.

Oyama wrote:By the way, what does "bread boarding out a circuit" mean? I'm not familiar with that phrase, so I don't get the analogy.


It's a circuit designing analogy. Basically, it was a means to put components together independantly on a "bread board", and manually wire it all up. Meaning, you would be connecting the components on a motherboard, but the motherboard wasn't there. So one had to come up with a different means to connect the parts to test to see if a motherboard was worth making with that design. (Mind you, only simplistic circuits are done this way these days by hobbiest). Bread boarding is usually pretty messy and is a hack, but it is good to test things before one spends the money to etch a REAL board.

In this case, it was giving the different systems in the G1 operating by intent only, which was very funky to see. Hence the comment. It was a nasty hack, but it worked.

Oyama wrote:P.S.- See you at Crucible!! I bought my ticket already ^_^
I'll only be there for Saturday though, best I could do.


Excellent. I look forward to meeting you. I will be VERY busy during the convention, however before and after (and during dinner) I will likely have more time. I'll show you first hand to elimate the confusion.

mahasvapna wrote:The very nature of energy, is Concept, information, energy.

You think a concept. You are holding it in your mind. Holding something tangible, whole, self contained.

I read it right, I know what you meant. I'm offering a perspective that will make working with energy easier, more flexible, with greater efficiency.


From your perspective it might be easier for you and what you do. Unfortunately, that perspective actually confuses the matter of which we are discussing. Your applying philosophy to science which is the problem. I should introduce you to Stormbringer (the head of OmniNorth), he's a philosopher too. As he would put it.."Evil Astral Math" when I get into the details this thread gets into. :) Keep in mind, you don't need to know this level of detail to do tech(Consciously anyways). This discussion is just on the how and WHY it works.


miri wrote:Materials are, it seems, no more than energies programmed out to the minute detail in order to carry out a function that would otherwise be less efficient. It's made MUCH more complicated than it has to be.


And this is why you fail. - Yoda. It's not programmed energy. I thought that was already established? There is a DISTINCT difference between intent/programming and shaping/inherency. The former is simply software running on a blob of energy. The latter is specifically patterned energy in such a way that the inherency of the pattern makes it do what it does. Programming/intent is the equivalent of software. That software can run on hardware which is just plain energy (which is how it is typically done in magic), or can run on hardware that is tech. The hardware can also be so hardwired that it doesn't need programming/intent to do what it does, hence you have tech and tech materials.

As far as MAKING tech materials and tech, yes this whole conversation is FAR more complicated than it has to be to actually DO it. We are describing the what is going on, not "the how to actually make it". Fortunately, it's FAR easier to teach, than it is to describe it's function on a forum.

miri wrote:Now, as for the properties of individual materials...It simply comes down to your inner's experience.


Unfortunately, that's the truth of the matter (at least the paraphrasing I quoted above). It takes a LOT of trial and error and educated guesses to make better tech and tech materials. It's like any other complicated research. It's mostly no-joys and every once in a while, you get a breakthrough. Hence why most of the initial boost Omnimancy got was from tech trades and collective work early on (as well as what my inner had stock piled, but others had stockpiles too). Now we are cheating, but that won't be discussed.

Tech was worked out by us lowers, but tech materials weren't worked out until much later. In many cases it was seeing examples of it from other entities (not that they knew we were copying in some cases at least at the time). In many cases, what WAS worked out was recombining things and making things work together that shouldn't.

miri wrote:In contrast, I tell my inner to produce a complex material that is COMPLETELY invunerable to all things and I get a beautiful mix of different energies patterened off of eachother such that no efect, or combinations of effects can phase it, used a as a shell it makes a construct potentially immortal, no amount of nuking phases it. It has almost NO programming in it whatsoever, and what little IS in there is mostly redundancy. I think that's the difference between a single material a basic one that we might be expected to make (the blocker of energies) and something that would be called a sub-machine by LordArt.


This sounds like a tech material, yes. Some machines are more "active" than others. If you have a machine that only responds if a lever is pulled, if that specific situation doesn't happen, does that mean it's not a machine? Many tech machines operate because of the environment they are meant to be in, and only activate when a particular designed situation happens. I will also admit I have FAR easier time figuiring out tech when it's active then when it's dormant.

But as you said, you didn't design that material. Your inner did, or at least aquired it. As I stated before, Omnimancy isn't unique at all, it just for some reason isn't practiced down here as lowers or at least not in an organised group, but it QUITE common in one form or another by those that live in the astral. For our inners, the astral environment IS their world. That is not to say that just because our inners practice it, that the level of knowledge of it is equal or even overlaps. Hence the strength of diversity.


miri wrote:The difference is, of course, that one is a single material, while the more useful/potent one is an appearently unending chain of those simple materials that are patterned and structured. then these crazy omni, they take materials this complex and put them together to make a superior material, and from there they use several materials at that level to make their final tech. it could get ridiculous, and undoubtedy... it does.


OOOHHHH, you have NO idea. You think what's in this thread makes your brain hurt, you should see some of the stuff that is used these days. It makes MY brain hurt, even abstracted.

miri wrote:The level of complexity would ... increase HUGELY both with experience and every amp recieved.


Experience yes, but the amps have little to with it at earlier stages. It just makes it easier and gives one the level of scaning detail (and energy manipulation detail and strength) to do these things easier. Eventually, yes, you MUST have a certain level of detail capability/strength to do certain things. In some cases, that can later be cercomvented by "higher level"(ie. more complicated) tech to reduce the requirements. Sort of the brute force method over the finense method. It's TRUELY frightening what even a G2 COULD do with senior Core level tech these days. Fortunately, we aren't that stupid to give it to them.

miri wrote:THeoretically any one of us could get to LordArt's level of tech, but by it's very nature the use of tech warps this process, making it too easy to move up fast. I'd say it's like starting an embryo on shock therapy treatment because the mother has a biological history of depression, to give tech amps like the ones LordArt eludes to, to most people...


We have proven (unfortunately) in the past it is a simple matter of knowledge. It is a disasterous effect. Oh, they can do it all, but they haven't built up the "character" to use it. With power comes responsibility, and without the discipline to handle such power, Very Bad Things(tm) happen. Without working for it, the value of anything is lessened. I see it even in the current students. Fortunately, not as bad. Learning what it is and how it works gives people a FAR better idea of what they can do without causing "accidents".

DrFredbert wrote:...what's an amp?

A tech spell that increases one's personal abilities past their normal limits.
User avatar
LordArt
Head Omnimancer
Head Omnimancer
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Earth Realm, This side of the Multiverse

Postby LordArt » Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:21 pm

Azazen wrote:When you say materials could you mean that say, you would make ten different spells, each with thier own engines, that would give different properties to something like a shield? But when you say no programming it still gets me, because even if the spell stays alive by being connected to you (Which seems like it would be dangerous in some situations) I still consider that programming on some level. Could you explain?


The connection between a person and their spell is there regardless (unless you get really fancy and abstract it, but that's something else again and is purposeful). In most cases, when a person casts something, they are powering it off themselves, so the connection between the spell and the caster is MUCH more obvious because the power running down the same line as the "maintenence" control line. When a spell is off-loaded to be powered by something else, the maintenence tether (as it's called in Omnimancy) is far less noticable and generally has to be specifically looked for, but is still there.

The inherent shape of the engine (in this case) is what allows it to do what it does. Not the intent/programming. A windmill turns at the top of a hill because the wind blows, not because someone wills it to turn or because someone turned on the power. It is it's shape and construction that make it do what it does. Intent is FAR easier and more versitial, don't get me wrong, but using specific tools (tech) for a certain job makes things MUCH MUCH easier and requires far less power. If you have a VASTE pool of tech to pull from, then intent becomes less needed for every day use, and the results are FAR more impressive.


mahasvapna wrote:Fortunately I have a flexible sense of terminology - I don't normally think in words.

And I don't take any of this personally, no worries - I think you say that again like three times in this response. say whatever you like, I don't have time to be offended.


Heh, that's good. Most people don't like their ideas challenged and get pissy when confronted with information that may contradict what they believe. Some handle it better than others, you seem to handle it well.


mahasvapna wrote:Perfect! Molecules are a comparison I understand. I know you're not saying they're exactly alike, no worries - I don't hardwire any of this stuff into my brain, just expand my understanding, both what it is and what it isn't. I'll have to give this some thought.


Glad I found a point of reference that works for you. :)


mahasvapna wrote:When I've learned your method, i will show you how this applies. Right now, I think our methods of casting are too different to explain it any simpler than I already have. It's not about repeating patterns, it was a litteral statement. Maybe you are used to dealing with an aspect of energy that doesn't make this obvious - its where I started out, so it was always a given.


It's a philosophical point of view difference. It's a matter of personal definitions and tweaking of certain words then forming a philosophy around those ideas. I've always found it facinating (and dissappointing) that people are seperated by the same language. That even suttle differences in what a word means to an individual can throw off an entire debate because of different personal connotations to a word.

mahasvapna wrote:And I agree, it is also a substance.A concept is a thought, and a thought is a pattern of energy in your brain, instigated by a patern of energy in your subtle body, instigated by a pattern of energy assimilated from various discrete peices of information within your sphere of being, sometimes with extra bits and peices that you were able to connect to. That is just the 'path' of energy. You can either continue it's path to creating something, or stop it there. Just because it happens in your head, doesn't mean it's exclusively there.


While one can get into a large philosophical debate about the energy in the brain and the spiritual body, the two energies are NOT the same. They may be end results of each other, but we are talking apples an oranges here, and this is what is confusing the matter. If you say the brain runs on electricity (ie. electrical impulses), that is NOT the same energy as what is in the spiritual body, and calling it the same confuses the matter. Light can cause heat, but that doesn't mean light IS heat. Both are forms of energy, but they are different.

For the purposes of the discussion in this thread, we are refering to "magical energy". The energy that is controlled/able to be manipulated by the spiritual hardware in your spirit.


mahasvapna wrote: You can either continue it's path to creating something, or stop it there. Just because it happens in your head, doesn't mean it's exclusively there.

Well, the thought is, the reprocussions OF that thought may or may not be.

mahasvapna wrote:How does one person read another person's thoughts?


Quite a few ways. I presume you mean by just knowing versus an intrusive scan. Most people "broadcast" their thoughts. Either more purposefully or not. Sometimes via their aura. Most of the time via the thought "hardware" not having proper shielding. Much like your computer would give off a HELL of a lot of EM interferance if it wasn't shielded. Electricity moving through wire creates magentic fields, but a magnetic field isn't electricity.

If you mean by instrusive scan, one can monitor the hardware itself. See what lights up so to speak and monitor the pattern. We can easily recontextualize the pattern into something usable.

mahasvapna wrote:How are their syncronicities in thought?


Anything from minds using the same stimulous to get to the same conclusion at the same time via logical progression. It can also be done via mental links or mutual scanning (which can amount to the same thing) either passive or active.

mahasvapna wrote: I have learned, also through more than a decade of experience, that by including the information aspect of energy - I would argue that it is all information of varying 'levels' - in my awareness of it, the process of manifesting and controlling energy is streamlined.

The problem here is your expanded definition of energy trying to encompass basically everything including information. A very eastern philosophical point of view. One that I don't agree with.

mahasvapna wrote:If you have more information, you are connected to more energy, are you not?

No. One has no direct concequence to the other. I might be told the color of your pants, but that doesn't connect me to more energy because I found out something I didn't know. If I find out one of my friends is going to be late, doesn't connect me to more energy. If you redefinite energy to MEAN information, then your logic works, as does your arguements, but energy is NOT information. Energy CAN be a medium to transport information, but that's different.

mahasvapna wrote:If you don't know about something, can you manipulate it?

Normally not directly. But one manipulates things every day that are known and one doesn't know about other things that are affected indirectly by manipulating those known thing because of the butterfly effect of manipulating the unknown in concequence.

mahasvapna wrote:Can energy and it's information be seperated?


Yes, and this is the TRUE crux of the dispargy of our points of view. You believe they cannot be. I believe they are inherently seperate. If the SAME information can be represented in different mediums, which they can be, then that information MUST be considered seperate from the mediums that they exist on. The mediums which convey the information is NOT the information, but simply a transport mechanism FOR that information. Wether it be brain electrical impulses to words on a paper to astral energies. Because that same information can be represented in different mediums mean that information does not equal the medium that it is represented on, nor does the medium the information. The same medium can be used for different information, which again shows how seperate they are.

mahasvapna wrote: You said yourself that if you don't know to look for something, you may not see it. equating energy with thought and concept shouldn't confuse the issue, unless you are determined to keep them seperate just to talk about varying locations of energy.


The word "energy" can mean MANY MANY things. It's a catch all word for things not made of matter (and even then one can say matter is simply compressed energy). But energy manifests in MANY ways that have little to do with each other, and therefore are quite seperate. Simply not knowing where to look doesn't equate to energy = concept/thought.

mahasvapna wrote:How does the idea for the carving manifest, if the path of energy doesn't go from your 'idea' to being the carving itself? If that's not the movement of energy, then what is?


Movement of energy is going from the power plant to my computer. Movement of energy is heat from the radiator to my skin. Movement of energy is not the manifestation of an idea. Manifestation of an idea takes lots of inbetween steps which requires work and skill.

This is great transcendental dinner conversation but unfortunately to my point of view, isn't practical. It's kind of like a new ager telling me that time doesn't exist. I say, tell that to your boss the next time your late to work and see where that gets you. I'm a pragmatic person. Time exists, while it may not exist in a socially correct linear fashion, it does exist. I've found in my time that magic (and a lot of other concepts for that matter) have been wrapped up too far in philosophy to gain anything practical from it anymore. Philosophy has it's place to be sure, but if used in a science has a tendency to cloud things.

mahasvapna wrote:A master sculpter has developed his ability to channel the energy into manifestation, and so can express the energy perfectly - a novice has yet to master that flow of energy, and so what comes out may not be exactly what he imagined. You have probably seen the same thing happen with new students, trying to create something that they seem to understand, but still needing to adjust what they create.


If a master sculpter concentrated REALLY hard and POOF the sculpture was there, I'd say that was manifestation of energy. But that isn't how it works.

mahasvapna wrote:Can you demonstrate how energy and information can be seperated? Can you have one without the other?


Yes, and I think I have demonstrated that above.

mahasvapna wrote:I did read it. Super dense, yes. I think that's what I mentioned before, but you told me it isn't harder to use, just harder to create. So hard magic is something that doesn't exist on it's own, it has to be fabricated?


Some hard magic exists naturally, but must stay in the environment it was created in as a general rule (or else it disappates over time). I would say any hard magic that exists beyond that was probably created by someone at one point. But I won't rule out other environments that might produce it naturally. Tech hard magic, yes, I would say has to be manifactured.


mahasvapna wrote:I suppose i have a hard time explaining astral senses to people who haven't thought of the universe as having more than an apparently physical aspect, in the past, so I can see where the difficulty would be in that. When i've learned your method, i'll revisit this. Sometimes getting so used to dealing with a complicated issue prevents people from remembering the simle aspect of it's explanation. That is nothing against you, but it's a rather common issue. :)


Things are FAR easier to explain with the right tools. Explaining this via a printed medium as this ISN'T it. Too much gets lost in the translation. The english language is suited for a certain level of communication, but even as I mentioned above, even communication with the same language can be hard, let alone concepts that there aren't words for. Best approximations are no where near as good as first hand experience. Wouldn't you agree?
User avatar
LordArt
Head Omnimancer
Head Omnimancer
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Earth Realm, This side of the Multiverse

Postby Lesenthe » Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:26 pm

Firstly, please understand that I'm not an Omni, though I've been taught some *very* basic things by a former member. I hope I can illustrate something of the simplicity of technique here, though I won't claim to be any sort of expert. The info posted here so far has been brilliant and very technical. Due to lack of training, I hadn't delved all too deeply into what was happening beyond the surface of the tech itself. At my current level of experience it's hard to comprehend what I'm seeing, but I am improving slowly.

When I look at a psionic's construct I generally see a shape made of energy, with threads running through it. If you rip out the threads, the construct becomes useless and has a tendency to fall apart by itself. The threads are the programming. When you look at tech you simply don't see those things. At first I saw my own efforts as a repeating pattern of lines far more complex than your average construct but still not tech. I had a friend scan one of my spells and he described it as being "made of information". A step in the right direction, but not quite what I was after.

As Art said, it's much easier to do than it is to explain. My first description of tech as patterns was correct in a sense, but still incorrect in that I was using patterns of programming - those pretty, gleaming lines - to make it. Consider the pane of glass in a window. Its function is to act as a barrier to keep out the elements while being transparent enough to see through. Its surface is slick, which makes it easy to clean and resistant to scratching. It isn't able to do these things because somebody made a big, flat blob of energy and added programming within to tell it to block the wind, rain, etc. It does what it does by virtue of the material it is made of. The molecules within the glass are aligned in such a fashion that it does what it does without being told to. It simply is.

Similarly, a tech empathic shield is designed to block empathic broadcast. It doesn't do so because you program it to, it does so because the material you make it from - the alignment of molecules in the energy, if you will - as that particular property. My experience with more complex machines is limited, but progressing steadily. One component is fashioned of a material with a specific property, which in conjunction with other components with different properties will form an energetic machine to perform a specific task. In order to make a spell to perform a given task I consider the problem, and pass it along to Inner. Inner works out the specific details of how it should be done, what components would be required, and passes this information back to me. I then create the spell based upon the blueprint which Inner gave me. It's not a case of fashioning each and every component separately and building the machine from scratch. It appears more like externalising the blueprint and allowing energy to fill it and take on the structure. There is no need to add programming to anything, because the different components will each do their job by virtue of their innate properties. To use a simplistic analogy, you could create a slingshot from energy in a single step, and stop there. The rubbers will stretch and snap back because they're made of an elastic material. The y-frame will be rigid because of the steel you've made it from. The pocket will be flexible because it's made from leather.

The hard part for me was learning precisely how to make the different materials, but it only too one lesson once I was shown. Once you see a simple piece of material being made it's an easy technique to duplicate, and once you're able to duplicate it you can make virtually anything within the limitations of your strength and ability to control energy.

I hope I've been able to offer a little clarity.

-Les
User avatar
Lesenthe
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:37 pm
Location: Australia

Postby miri » Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:18 am

LordArt wrote:
miri wrote:Materials are, it seems, no more than energies programmed out to the minute detail in order to carry out a function that would otherwise be less efficient. It's made MUCH more complicated than it has to be.


And this is why you fail. - Yoda. It's not programmed energy. I thought that was already established? There is a DISTINCT difference between intent/programming and shaping/inherency. The former is simply software running on a blob of energy. The latter is specifically patterned energy in such a way that the inherency of the pattern makes it do what it does. Programming/intent is the equivalent of software. That software can run on hardware which is just plain energy (which is how it is typically done in magic), or can run on hardware that is tech. The hardware can also be so hardwired that it doesn't need programming/intent to do what it does, hence you have tech and tech materials.

As far as MAKING tech materials and tech, yes this whole conversation is FAR more complicated than it has to be to actually DO it. We are describing the what is going on, not "the how to actually make it". Fortunately, it's FAR easier to teach, than it is to describe it's function on a forum.


"A rose by any other name smells [just] as sweet" - Romeo

I fear that you limit the definition of "programming" based on what you have seen, alone... I see, and consider, programming to be any alteration from the natural state of an energy, intentionally or unintentionally caused and changeable. programming is like software that can change the hardware... and I think that's the closest I can describe it.

LordArt wrote:
miri wrote:Now, as for the properties of individual materials...It simply comes down to your inner's experience.


Unfortunately, that's the truth of the matter (at least the paraphrasing I quoted above). It takes a LOT of trial and error and educated guesses to make better tech and tech materials. It's like any other complicated research. It's mostly no-joys and every once in a while, you get a breakthrough. Hence why most of the initial boost Omnimancy got was from tech trades and collective work early on (as well as what my inner had stock piled, but others had stockpiles too). Now we are cheating, but that won't be discussed.

Tech was worked out by us lowers, but tech materials weren't worked out until much later. In many cases it was seeing examples of it from other entities (not that they knew we were copying in some cases at least at the time). In many cases, what WAS worked out was recombining things and making things work together that shouldn't.


... Uh-huh...

LordArt wrote:
miri wrote:In contrast, I tell my inner to produce a complex material that is COMPLETELY invunerable to all things and I get a beautiful mix of different energies patterened off of eachother such that no efect, or combinations of effects can phase it, used a as a shell it makes a construct potentially immortal, no amount of nuking phases it. It has almost NO programming in it whatsoever, and what little IS in there is mostly redundancy. I think that's the difference between a single material a basic one that we might be expected to make (the blocker of energies) and something that would be called a sub-machine by LordArt.


This sounds like a tech material, yes. Some machines are more "active" than others. If you have a machine that only responds if a lever is pulled, if that specific situation doesn't happen, does that mean it's not a machine? Many tech machines operate because of the environment they are meant to be in, and only activate when a particular designed situation happens. I will also admit I have FAR easier time figuiring out tech when it's active then when it's dormant.

But as you said, you didn't design that material. Your inner did, or at least aquired it. As I stated before, Omnimancy isn't unique at all, it just for some reason isn't practiced down here as lowers or at least not in an organised group, but it QUITE common in one form or another by those that live in the astral. For our inners, the astral environment IS their world. That is not to say that just because our inners practice it, that the level of knowledge of it is equal or even overlaps. Hence the strength of diversity.


The beauty behind tech is that turning it off has no concequences... except that it's not as easy to figure out for others... many "constructs" are, sadly, not given this feature, but it's natural in tech... not that I just contributed anything of any value, but I had to say something.

miri wrote:The difference is, of course, that one is a single material, while the more useful/potent one is an appearently unending chain of those simple materials that are patterned and structured. then these crazy omni, they take materials this complex and put them together to make a superior material, and from there they use several materials at that level to make their final tech. it could get ridiculous, and undoubtedy... it does.


OOOHHHH, you have NO idea. You think what's in this thread makes your brain hurt, you should see some of the stuff that is used these days. It makes MY brain hurt, even abstracted.[/quote] It's not THAT complicated... and I'll have to take your word on the new stuff... unless you feel like spreading the headaches (which none of us would mind ;)).

LordArt wrote:
miri wrote:The level of complexity would ... increase HUGELY both with experience and every amp recieved.


Experience yes, but the amps have little to with it at earlier stages. It just makes it easier and gives one the level of scaning detail (and energy manipulation detail and strength) to do these things easier. Eventually, yes, you MUST have a certain level of detail capability/strength to do certain things. In some cases, that can later be cercomvented by "higher level"(ie. more complicated) tech to reduce the requirements. Sort of the brute force method over the finense method. It's TRUELY frightening what even a G2 COULD do with senior Core level tech these days. Fortunately, we aren't that stupid to give it to them.

Being generous doesn't have to be synonymous with stupid... :3

LordArt wrote:
miri wrote:THeoretically any one of us could get to LordArt's level of tech, but by it's very nature the use of tech warps this process, making it too easy to move up fast. I'd say it's like starting an embryo on shock therapy treatment because the mother has a biological history of depression, to give tech amps like the ones LordArt eludes to, to most people...


We have proven (unfortunately) in the past it is a simple matter of knowledge. It is a disasterous effect. Oh, they can do it all, but they haven't built up the "character" to use it. With power comes responsibility, and without the discipline to handle such power, Very Bad Things(tm) happen. Without working for it, the value of anything is lessened. I see it even in the current students. Fortunately, not as bad. Learning what it is and how it works gives people a FAR better idea of what they can do without causing "accidents".


Which leads me to understand why this is generally a personal method of gaining strength.
User avatar
miri
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:41 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Postby LordArt » Thu Oct 12, 2006 11:21 am

miri wrote:I fear that you limit the definition of "programming" based on what you have seen, alone... I see, and consider, programming to be any alteration from the natural state of an energy, intentionally or unintentionally caused and changeable. programming is like software that can change the hardware... and I think that's the closest I can describe it.


This is an unfortunate issue of what I was talking to mahasvapna about with personal definitions of words. Since I don't use the word "programming" for magic, I use the definition given to me by the many psions I know, including those that have made their way into Omnimancy itself, for this conversation. (We even have a rather feeble term translator doc in the protected forums). We use the word "intent". In anycase, even as you say, programming by your definition is software, and trying to extend it to hardware changes. While you CAN have software change hardware I suppose, that isn't how tech works since generally there isn't "software" to make such changes. If you define "programming" as casting anything, then it makes the term too general to be useful in this discussion, hence why I was trying to define terms.

miri wrote:The beauty behind tech is that turning it off has no concequences... except that it's not as easy to figure out for others... many "constructs" are, sadly, not given this feature, but it's natural in tech... not that I just contributed anything of any value, but I had to say something.


I wouldn't say that completely. Or at least misleads the reality. Most tech NEEDS power to do what it does or else it lies dormant (at least it's active properties). Admittedly, in many cases, it doesn't require much power, but again, it depends what your doing. As far as having it hard to figuire out, I'll admit it's easier to figuire out when it's active, but in Omnimancy, we purposely encrypt the tech so it can't be copied (or at least VERY difficult to do so). However, when teaching it, its presented unencrypted so it's easily copied and understood. However, its standard practice when doing casting outside of class to make sure it's uncopyable. It's one of the early things we teach as standard procedure.

miri wrote:Being generous doesn't have to be synonymous with stupid... :3

No, it doesn't, and in certain cases we are generious, especially if the student asks good questions or is working on something specific and needs help with it. We admire a good mind and initiative and try to reward it.
User avatar
LordArt
Head Omnimancer
Head Omnimancer
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Earth Realm, This side of the Multiverse

Postby miri » Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:26 pm

LordArt wrote:This is an unfortunate issue of what I was talking to mahasvapna about with personal definitions of words. Since I don't use the word "programming" for magic, I use the definition given to me by the many psions I know, including those that have made their way into Omnimancy itself, for this conversation. (We even have a rather feeble term translator doc in the protected forums). We use the word "intent". In anycase, even as you say, programming by your definition is software, and trying to extend it to hardware changes. While you CAN have software change hardware I suppose, that isn't how tech works since generally there isn't "software" to make such changes. If you define "programming" as casting anything, then it makes the term too general to be useful in this discussion, hence why I was trying to define terms.


Then by the terms you seem intent on using it is indeed not programming, that I concede.

LordArt wrote:I wouldn't say that completely. Or at least misleads the reality. Most tech NEEDS power to do what it does or else it lies dormant (at least it's active properties). Admittedly, in many cases, it doesn't require much power, but again, it depends what your doing. As far as having it hard to figuire out, I'll admit it's easier to figuire out when it's active, but in Omnimancy, we purposely encrypt the tech so it can't be copied (or at least VERY difficult to do so). However, when teaching it, its presented unencrypted so it's easily copied and understood. However, its standard practice when doing casting outside of class to make sure it's uncopyable. It's one of the early things we teach as standard procedure.


Once something is standard proceedure it may as well be a given factor... *makes plans to sneak into a class and look at all the un encrypted tech :P*

LordArt wrote:No, it doesn't, and in certain cases we are generious, especially if the student asks good questions or is working on something specific and needs help with it. We admire a good mind and initiative and try to reward it.


Sounds fair to me... The more I learn about Omnimancy, the more I want to learn about it... Too bad I can't make it to the crucible convention (aka 'the tech-amp giveaway of my dreams')...

New questions

1.) Oyama: Could you maybe scan that diagram (how this started) onto the net and post a link? I'm really interested in seeing it.

2.) LordArt: If the abstracted view of the tech used confuses YOU then how is it they were made if you (the lower) were responsible for its/their creation (I'm aware you didn't make all of this but the founder ought to understand his students' works... oughtn't he/she)?

3.) allreaders: (more of a comment) I agree with the note that the KIND of energy you make a material from OUGHT to effect efficiency and other traits. That is, alot of energies have traits that aren't going to be ignorable depending on how you pattern the energy...

4.) allreaders: If material isn't present in G1 work... might I ask why that still qualifies at tech? Is it just the methodology for creation? I have trouble picking out many differences from coinstructs and G1 'tech.'
User avatar
miri
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:41 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Postby LordArt » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:06 pm

miri wrote:1.) Oyama: Could you maybe scan that diagram (how this started) onto the net and post a link? I'm really interested in seeing it.


He already did when he and I were first talking. If he wants, I can post it here.

miri wrote:2.) LordArt: If the abstracted view of the tech used confuses YOU then how is it they were made if you (the lower) were responsible for its/their creation (I'm aware you didn't make all of this but the founder ought to understand his students' works... oughtn't he/she)?


Why do you say the abstracted view confuses me? Honestly, it's EASIER to use tech abstracted, because you work with it via it's higher concepts rather than having to pay attention to EVERY detail. In most cases, you have to pay attention to very little other than what you're trying to accomplish. The majority of the low to mid end techs as a lower I understand quite well. The HIGHER ended stuff that I'm using now is confusing because of it's nature. It's using aspects of dimentional physics that as a lower I don't understand fully. My inner does of course and is progressing, but I'll admit I only understand it in layman's terms or in pieces. Doesn't prevent me from using it, but I will admit there are stuff that is just catagorised as "weird shit"(tm) and I have to deal with it if I try to get too much detail.

That doesn't have anything to do with doing analysis on my student's work. (Or anyone else for that matter doing the same) There are only 3 others in the group on/near my level, and two others close (All Core members). The rest dispite being QUITE powerful (well some), had gotten hit by the power cap so are where I would consider "mid" level these days (as scary as that is). So understanding their work is not an issue and we continue to help them on their projects as time allows. They just don't progress at the break-neck speed that the formal training does anymore.

miri wrote:3.) allreaders: (more of a comment) I agree with the note that the KIND of energy you make a material from OUGHT to effect efficiency and other traits. That is, alot of energies have traits that aren't going to be ignorable depending on how you pattern the energy...


OUGHT to, perhaps. In practice, not really for the explanations given above on the matter. Trust me, if it made a practical difference, we as Omnis would be ALL over it. We are all about tweaking the power of things. But we have a larger pool to pull from, so that CAN be a factor to why it isn't practical for us. If the pool is small, then perhaps it becomes more practical. We have just never found it so (and people HAVE tried).

miri wrote:4.) allreaders: If material isn't present in G1 work... might I ask why that still qualifies at tech? Is it just the methodology for creation? I have trouble picking out many differences from coinstructs and G1 'tech.'


The G1 DOES have tech in it (ie. materials). I found that out when I purposely tried to create it energy only. It was just the material it was made out of was SO primative, I didn't reconize it as a tech material as such. It looked more like other astral materials I had come across. Keep in mind, the G1 qualifying as "tech" in my mind isn't just about the materials, but it's about how it's put together. Meaning, it's still a machine (with systems and all), but the base materials aren't tech materials, that's all (ie. when I made the non-tech material version). Also, keep in mind that the non-tech material version sucked and probably wasn't practical to use. It was more of a test to see if it could be done as raw energy. It was simplistic enough to give it a go.
User avatar
LordArt
Head Omnimancer
Head Omnimancer
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Earth Realm, This side of the Multiverse

Postby FireEssence » Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:48 pm

Art: In my experiences it's easier to use tech than raw will, would you say that's another plus in general or is this atypical?
Igne Natura Renovatur Integra
User avatar
FireEssence
New Student
New Student
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 10:23 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby LordArt » Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:00 pm

FireEssence wrote:Art: In my experiences it's easier to use tech than raw will, would you say that's another plus in general or is this atypical?


I would say that's true, but I'm biased, so I don't know if I'm REALLY the person to ask. :twisted: For me, it's about effectiveness and tech wins over raw will everytime (if you have the tech for the application), so there isn't a contest.

Raw will, in my experience, you end up putting out a LOT of effort because you want whatever you are casting to be as effective as you can, and the more effort you put in, the better it is. With tech, you just need to use the minimal casting effort for the spell in question to make it work. So if your magical will is greater than the requirement, then it's just easier because you aren't using your full power/effort to do it. Doesn't mean you CAN'T use your full power, but it isn't needed. Normally the tech's effectiveness is dependant on what's in it and how much is powering it. (I will also say personal skill increases it's efficiency, but that's true with raw will or tech anyways). Knowing that in the end makes casting it easier in the end.

This is from personal experience and those of my students (I haven't heard anything from them that would contradict this). However, we are biased considering what is being studied and why. You might do better getting an answer from an Ex-psion in the group.
User avatar
LordArt
Head Omnimancer
Head Omnimancer
 
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Earth Realm, This side of the Multiverse

Postby miri » Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:42 pm

LordArt wrote:
miri wrote:2.) LordArt: If the abstracted view of the tech used confuses YOU then how is it they were made if you (the lower) were responsible for its/their creation (I'm aware you didn't make all of this but the founder ought to understand his students' works... oughtn't he/she)?


Why do you say the abstracted view confuses me? Honestly, it's EASIER to use tech abstracted, because you work with it via it's higher concepts rather than having to pay attention to EVERY detail. In most cases, you have to pay attention to very little other than what you're trying to accomplish. The majority of the low to mid end techs as a lower I understand quite well. The HIGHER ended stuff that I'm using now is confusing because of it's nature. It's using aspects of dimentional physics that as a lower I don't understand fully. My inner does of course and is progressing, but I'll admit I only understand it in layman's terms or in pieces. Doesn't prevent me from using it, but I will admit there are stuff that is just catagorised as "weird shit"(tm) and I have to deal with it if I try to get too much detail.

That doesn't have anything to do with doing analysis on my student's work. (Or anyone else for that matter doing the same) There are only 3 others in the group on/near my level, and two others close (All Core members). The rest dispite being QUITE powerful (well some), had gotten hit by the power cap so are where I would consider "mid" level these days (as scary as that is). So understanding their work is not an issue and we continue to help them on their projects as time allows. They just don't progress at the break-neck speed that the formal training does anymore.


Now you misunderstand... you said that it makes your head hurt, "the stuff used these days" that is. I merely wonder a bit how you cna be so comfertable using something you can't even understand beyond the level you admit to... Frankly you strike me as someone who would find out at any cost how it works... Though that cost would undoubtedly be mere time... anyway...

As for seeing people that are amazing to some feel mid-level... I have to say I've seen that in some situations... of course, in the psionic community... except when something like a diety (or Omni) shows up... many start to get cocky... But obviously there are much larger fish than those you find in the psionic community.

LordArt wrote:
miri wrote:3.) allreaders: (more of a comment) I agree with the note that the KIND of energy you make a material from OUGHT to effect efficiency and other traits. That is, alot of energies have traits that aren't going to be ignorable depending on how you pattern the energy...


OUGHT to, perhaps. In practice, not really for the explanations given above on the matter. Trust me, if it made a practical difference, we as Omnis would be ALL over it. We are all about tweaking the power of things. But we have a larger pool to pull from, so that CAN be a factor to why it isn't practical for us. If the pool is small, then perhaps it becomes more practical. We have just never found it so (and people HAVE tried).


It wouldn't be the first time that reality has kicked logic in the balls...

LordArt wrote:
miri wrote:4.) allreaders: If material isn't present in G1 work... might I ask why that still qualifies at tech? Is it just the methodology for creation? I have trouble picking out many differences from coinstructs and G1 'tech.'


The G1 DOES have tech in it (ie. materials). I found that out when I purposely tried to create it energy only. It was just the material it was made out of was SO primative, I didn't reconize it as a tech material as such. It looked more like other astral materials I had come across. Keep in mind, the G1 qualifying as "tech" in my mind isn't just about the materials, but it's about how it's put together. Meaning, it's still a machine (with systems and all), but the base materials aren't tech materials, that's all (ie. when I made the non-tech material version). Also, keep in mind that the non-tech material version sucked and probably wasn't practical to use. It was more of a test to see if it could be done as raw energy. It was simplistic enough to give it a go.


Well, good enough for me... though I can honestly say that one could accidentally make constructs as "tech-like" as the... two G1 level creations I've seen...
Last edited by miri on Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
miri
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:41 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Postby FireEssence » Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:44 pm

Well, I would say that I'm technically an ex-psion, but the fact that I'm a natural mage might screw that up.
Igne Natura Renovatur Integra
User avatar
FireEssence
New Student
New Student
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 10:23 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Postby Oyama » Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:48 pm

Here it is (and yes it's drawn on a post-it note :P ). I need to get going, but when I get back I'll edit this post with a description. It can be interpreted in many ways, so I feel it needs to be accompanied by a description so you'll know what was going through my head when I drew it, which might help you understand the symbolism used.

Image
Last edited by Oyama on Tue Oct 24, 2006 9:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Oyama
Research Student
Research Student
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:09 pm

Postby miri » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:12 pm

That makes a fair bit of sense, almost surprisingly...
User avatar
miri
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:41 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Postby Lesenthe » Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:58 am

This is where finnesse gains the advantage over brute force. Structure, attention to detail. Compress the energy into a ball as hard as you like, but it is more efficient by far to align things correctly, use the patterns to your advantage. In this case, I'd imagine it's the structure that holds your ball together, gives it strength and makes it less dependant upon programming or intent alone to ensure that it remains a ball and doesn't break apart and dissolve. Of course the brute strength is required. I haven't a hope in hell of constructing the astral metals Art described above, as my strength level and the detail I'm currently capable of perceiving aren't nearly up to that task.

What I've only recently come to understand is the properties that exist by virtue of the patterns of structure, and the other things that exist on a leven below the immediately apparent structure. I had no idea just how in-depth the things my Inner was helping me with were until I read something here and decided to look deeper.
User avatar
Lesenthe
Visitor
Visitor
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:37 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Oyama » Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:00 pm

Okay, it's been a while, but I've been busy. I'll try to make this short.
The little "spark" things around the outer sphere represent machines on the outer edge of the spell that gather energy from the environment into the spell. The "sparks" are arrows pointing inward to symbolize the energy traveling into the spell.

The innermost sphere is where this energy goes. The energy won't compress itself; as more comes in from all directions, it will spread out away from the center. The band around the inner sphere is the containment shell. It looks like a bunch of boxes with "X's" surrounding the inner sphere. If you look at two boxes, and get rid of the middle line, you'll see an upward and a downward arrow. The upward arrow is actually made from half of the arrows on each side of the downward arrow, because there are not meant to be any upward arrows, only downward (adjacent arrows overlap, creating upward arrows by accident). If you look at the whole band like this, you'll see that it is a series of arrows pointing inward. What this translates to is a shell that prevents energy from escaping the inner sphere by pushing it back in (or just think of it as repulsion, like with magnets) as it tries to escape.

Anyway, that's how it's meant to be seen. I thought about editing the original post, but decided I might as well make a new post about it at this point, so if anyone was still interested, they would know that I finally got around to writing it up, lol.
Bye for now.
User avatar
Oyama
Research Student
Research Student
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 8:09 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Interesting Magical Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

Home | Forums | Members | Events | Public IRC | IRC | Documents | FAQ | Omnimancy Overview | Omnimancy Translator | Stories