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

[Masquerade]

I agree with everything you have said. According to my mentor and his teacher i have used "tech" before. To be completely honest we don't give our sub-cons enough credit. I don't have to differintiate between any two types of energy because my con knows exactly what my intentions are and the types of energy needed to get results of those intentions. Really i believe that most practicers of this art are over thinking most things. Everything we need to do our subcon can learn or already knows. It is up to us to relax and let things work out from our intentions "Power of intention"

- Masquerade -

[Oyama]

Well, I think you're taking it a bit far, though I agree that relaxing and having confidence will benefit your magical efforts. Overthinking things is bad, yes, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be thinking at all. For everyday casting of things you already know and (hopefully) understand, you don't really need to micromanage. However, when doing research on things you don't know, going into higher levels of detail proves useful. Also, when your inner hands you something, it is good to know how it works. Knowing details can help you innovate and improve things even as a lower (though your inner will probably be doing it regardless), and makes explaining the spell to others easier.

Yes the subconscious is powerful, but so is the conscious, so don't totally ignore the hows and whys. Granted, there is a certain level of detail that you don't really NEED to know as a lower, but it's good to have at least a basic idea of what you're doing, even if it is in symbolic terms.

As far as differentiating between types of energies, it is a useful skill to have. These are the kinds of things that are good to know as a lower, even if your inner self (equivalent to subconscious in the context you're using) can already do it. If you just let your inner self do everything for you, without really getting involved, can you really call yourself a skilled magician? If people come to ask you for help, will you actually know how to help them, or do you just give the job over to someone else (though technically your inner is still you) and hope for the best, and tell them to do the same?

Ok, I know I'm rambling, but what I'm trying to say is that yes, your subconscious can generally take care of things for you, but that is the equivalent of being a mundane. Whether they know it or not, that is pretty much what they are doing: taking care of their physical lives and leaving the astral stuff to the inner. If you truly want to be skilled as a lower, you need to be paying at least some attention, otherwise you're in the dark, and don't really have control of what you can or cannot do.

Simply using intent and not paying attention to how an intent can manifest doesn't really count either, at least not as tech. It's raw will casting, and it's the equivalent of just wanting something really bad, which anyone can (and everyone does) do. Even if your inner starts doing things, all you had to do was want and try to make it happen by focusing on the desire happening.

By the way, I shouldn't have to say this, but just in case: whether you're a magician or not, your physical life is important. The astral life is not a replacement for the physical life. In fact, starting magic and deciding to be an active player in your astral life is an extra burden. You are now facing the challenges of life on two fronts (or planes if you wanna get technical). Yes, your inner will still be there and can take care of your astral life, but you are shouldering some of the burden as well.

If you become powerful enough to be considered significant by the general "community," you may start having to deal with politics, new relationships (not the romantic kind, though I guess I can't speak for others), and confrontations. It's the price you pay for the knowledge and power that comes with it.

Bleh, I really need to learn how to say things in a concise manner. >.>

[Mindlessinvalid]

Major Necro-post, but I feel it's somewhat relevant.

Having read through this thread once before and coming away with the wrong impression, I think it takes major loosening up of the current paradigm one holds to grasp the idea of tech.

I came back and read this thread last night and everything just clicked.

If I were to use the weaving analogy some mages are fond of, spells are cloth. Tech spells are garments made of composite cloth.

I somehow understood last night what I had puzzled over for months and gave up on last year.

By going into the extreme detail you have many small parts working at full capacity on one thing each, rather than one thing working at partial capacity on many things at once.

It's the difference between a gaming PC and a Beowulf Cluster.

The PC has finite resources and needs to be rebuilt from scratch if something vital breaks.

The Beowulf cluster has many similar devices working in tandem on one thing, but each device in the cluster only does part of the work but at maximum efficiency. If a unit in the cluster dies, the whole network only loses a bit of efficiency but doesn't actually crash.

It takes much longer to build a beowulf cluster, but you can do so much more with it than a gaming PC.

In fact, I think a Beowulf cluster is the perfect analogy for this. You have the individual components, making up the computer parts, making up the computer, making up the system that does the work.

Everything short of the final product are what you omnis would call "materials" because that's what they are. They go together to make the final product.

Tweaking efficiency is merely a matter of swapping out the materials until you find the optimal configuration (just like a beowulf cluster)

The feeling I got from this thread was that Tech stopped at the level of PC. But having re-read and re-analyzed the posts here, I see that I was wrong.

I would even venture to say that good tech would be akin to many beowulf clusters working in sequence through gateway computers (not the brand, the gateway is the leader of the cluster in this case)

[Psychokinetic Wannabe]

As always readers are cautioned to remember that anything I say is not representative of Omni's views or beliefs, or those of any member there-of.

This reminds me of my own experience around November when I started posting here. Like yourself I had stopped earlier at a failure to figure out the difference between the beowulf clusters of tech and the PCs of typical spell work. I'm not completely certain how accurate your analogy is, but it fits with my conception of tech, once you remove the fact that a PC already has a bunch of different parts doing a dedicated task.

Everything short of the final product are what you omnis would call "materials" because that's what they are. They go together to make the final product.

Here I'm a little less certain, because I think material actually has a more technical definition in tech. BUT I'll gladly admit that I have no idea what specifically Omni defines as materials or what the criterion is. I think in this case 'anything short of the final product' is not the best definition, because that's too vague. I would define the most irreducible components as materials. In this case, if you assume each PC is one blob of energy, rather than containing different hardware, then each individual PC would be made from a specific material, and maybe multiple PCs would be made up of the same material, but to say that a couple of the PCs are a material because they are short of the final product would be wrong.

Of course I am just guessing based on what has been said about materials here and to me. The way I understand it, a material is basically a mass of energy which has had it's properties modified at a level beneath programming but at a less fundamental nature than the energy type itself. Like, the energy from a star and the energy from an aura's run-off are different, but can be transmuted, if so desired, but making a material doesn't require transmuting. however, the material making also changes the properties of the energy (whatever that energy is), in a way that programming does not.

Other than the materials bit though, I think your analogy and the understanding behind it are pretty much on the right track. I might be off, so take what I say with a nice spoonful of salt.

[Mindlessinvalid]

I drew the materials conclusion from when lordart said that most materials are made of smaller materials, suggesting that when you've completed the spell you've made tech.

[Oyama]

This is why I prefer looking at "tech" as an approach rather than a label for a type of spell work. To a monkey, a wooden stick is some pretty nifty technology, but as humans that's not what we think of as "technology." Technically, they are both technology, it's just a matter of perspective.

I'd personally argue that any systematic approach to spellwork (including ritual magic), where pieces/parts can be interchanged and tinkered with to affect performance, and where magical principles beyond simple willpower are utilized, is tech. Maybe not omni-style tech, but tech nonetheless.

As for materials, it is misleading to say that anything below the final product is a material. Usually, materials refer to "pieces" of energy with certain properties that affect the performance of the thing in which they're being used. Your spell may have several working parts, and different materials may be used in each of those parts, and even in parts of those parts, to make them work better. The more complex and diverse the components of the spell, the more opportunities there are to swap out materials to boost or alter performance, and the more your perspective starts to twist the definition of "material." In more complex tech, materials themselves can made up of tech spells, like astral nanomachines.

The best analogy I can think of to describe the perspective issue is the human body. The body has several systems, which are made up of several organs, which are made up of tissues, which are made up of cells, which are made up of proteins, and so forth. Where you draw the line of "materials" depends on your perspective.

Are the Amino Acid and peptide chains the materials? The complex proteins? The cells? The tissues? The organs? The answer to all of these is, technically, yes. You could take a set of Amino Acids and arrange them into all kinds of different types of proteins, which could be used in all of the different systems of the body, but you need a certain configuration to make cells appropriate for building muscles. You need a certain type of muscle tissue, with specific properties, to build a heart.

Rather than ponder some static, all-encompassing definition of what a material is, you'd be better served by designing and building spells. It becomes intuitive and these questions answer themselves.

[Mindlessinvalid]

Thanks for the advice, for all my pandering I'm hesitant to try tech.
I rarely have anything I need magic for, so most of my practice kinda goes to waste. I don't know how I would practice tech when I struggle to find uses for what I already do. I guess since that aside from being a psion, I'm also a bit of a talismanic mage (someone dealing in enchanting trinkets and the like) I should just try to do my enchanting routines tech style.

So for clarification, and example of my practice reduced to tech approach would be:

Goal: trinket for good health

Process:
layer an energy mass defining health
layer an energy mass defining the desired aspects (preferably one for each aspect)
layer in an energy source,
layer in instructions of intent,
layer in instructions to actualize intent,
layer in a definition of scope (who gets affected and how much (2 parts)
layer in instructions to bind to the trinket
layer in contingencies on when to be active
layer in a kill switch that terminates the entire chain.

am I correct in assuming that this is tech?

[Oyama]

Thanks for the advice, for all my pandering I'm hesitant to try tech.

You shouldn't be, as an approach it's not inherently any more dangerous than other forms of spellcasting.

I rarely have anything I need magic for, so most of my practice kinda goes to waste. I don't know how I would practice tech when I struggle to find uses for what I already do.

Well, you can do simple things that you don't need, just to test things out.

I should just try to do my enchanting routines tech style.

Sure, you could do that.

[1]layer an energy mass defining health
[2]layer an energy mass defining the desired aspects (preferably one for each aspect)
[3]layer in an energy source,
[4]layer in instructions of intent,
[5]layer in instructions to actualize intent,
[6]layer in a definition of scope (who gets affected and how much (2 parts)
[7]layer in instructions to bind to the trinket
[8]layer in contingencies on when to be active
[9]layer in a kill switch that terminates the entire chain.

am I correct in assuming that this is tech?

You've reduced tech to breaking down a spell's programming into individual sections, and while this is sometimes used in programming complex tech spells, it is not even close to the full scope of the approach, nor its defining quality. The programming is like a task, and tech really shines when you start creating improved tools to perform the task. To use your health spell example, a tech approach would help it most by creating a more powerful or efficient construct to carry out the specified goals of improved health. Here's a detailed critique of your breakdown:

[1], [2], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8] are lines of programming, not layers of energy mass, and can be consolidated as such:

-------------

[1] Bring the person who wears 'X' talisman to 'Y' state of health.

Every line you had is implicit in that one statement or an equivalent to it. The only part that could really be expanded is "Y state of Health," as that is the actual meat of the spell's purpose and is vague. So, for example, you could have it as:

[1] Improve Jack's -
(1a) Respiratory Efficiency
(1b) Muscular Performance
(1c) Neuro-muscular Coordination

[2]So that he can run at least
(2a) 1 mile

in

(2b) 7 minutes.

-------------------------

The programming tells the construct what to do with the energy, it is not an energy mass itself (ignoring the whole "information = energy" thing).

For [3], you simply need to tell it implicitly or explicitly to stay, and either allow it to use your own energy for sustenance (which it will do automatically), or hook it up to an external source and tell it to use that instead, or, if you have the know-how, create an internal energy source as part of the construct and have it run off that.

[7] need only be improved if your worried about something trying to remove the spell from the talisman. This would involve implementing protection tech into the spell to prevent outside influence.

[9] is unnecessary in this case as you can simply will it to dissolve and it will do so.

So, your programming is reduced to:

[1] "Stay" or "Continue to Run."
[2] Bring the person who wears 'X' talisman to Y state of health.

Technically, you would get rid of [1] if you didn't want the spell to remain active after the person achieved their goal. Using the running example, that person would wear the talisman all or most of the time and train normally, and it would speed their progress toward their desired goal, then when they ran a mile in 7 minutes or less, the magic would dissolve.

On the hardware side of things, your main areas of improvement are power management and manifestation. The best way to improve power management is to improve efficiency, so the spell uses less energy for the same "magical effect output" for lack of a better term, and can therefore also create more effect for the same amount of energy. This has diminishing returns after a certain point without good tech to help the effect manifest. Power management tech is fairly easy to develop, manifestation tech is trickier, and requires more heavy-duty R&D into how the universe works and how magic fits into it.

Hopefully the following will help to break the tinted glasses your paradigm is giving you:

On Constructs - For many people, a construct is composed of 2 categorical parts:

1: a consolidated mass of energy, and
2: a command telling it what to do.

It's basically a programmed energy ball. The construct is made of its own fuel and burns itself out to carry out its command, like pouring some gasoline somewhere and igniting it to warm an area up.

In Omni-style tech, it is composed of 3 parts:

1: Power supply.
2: Housing.
3: Programming

From this viewpoint, the previous energy ball serves as both 1 and 2, the command serves as 3, and there is no break between the energy and the work. But by inserting a third categorical component between the energy and the command, we open up new possibilities for innovation and improvement in the art and science of using magical energy to manifest our intent. The "Housing" is where 90% of normal tech exists. Here, energy is used to harness and direct other energy in better ways by applying known magical mechanics of the universe. This is meta-magic, this is the principal behind the concept of "spell hardware" of which Omnis so often speak (hardware, NOT "Hard Magic" which you may have seen mentioned in other threads), this is really the essence of tech . . . THIS IS SPARTA! >_>

Programming and Power Supply are an important part of the overall approach too, but without the concept of spell hardware, you're dead in the water as far as tech is concerned. Another point of clarification is that the components of the Housing are made from and use a portion of the energy from the Power Supply. The rest of the energy from the Power Supply is directed by the Housing tech in carrying out the Programming. Remember, energy used to affect other energy, magic used to affect other magic: Meta-magic.

On Programming - Psions often have a different idea of what programming is than Omnis. For many psions, programming is telling the energy what to do with itself. For Omnis, programming is telling the spell as a whole what to do with the energy from its Power Supply. Shaping energy is not programming, even patterning energy into certain types is not really programming, but telling a spell to heal someone is programming. When spells become advanced or complex enough that they have tech in them performing sub-tasks not directly related to the spell's purpose (such as protecting themselves, or using a property of a material in a certain way to affect the spell's performance), then you have sub-programming, the semantic lines become a bit fuzzier and it starts to resemble psionic programming a little bit more. But it has a different starting point, it's still not telling energy what to do with itself, it's telling energy what to do with other energy, or telling hardware what to do with power.

[Mindlessinvalid]

So basically, in practicing rudimentary tech I need to get into habit of telling energy what to do with other energy first, then worry about tweaking effectiveness later?
This way my spells don't burn down, but rather function until a defined point of termination is reached?

I never thought of that, even though that's a now obvious concept.

I'm assuming hard magic is literally magic that has mundanely observable manifestation of some sort? For example, my experiments with raising temperature in objects and the like?

I want to learn, and I don't care how far down the ladder the training starts before it gets good. I just want knowledge for the sake of understanding, and the only way to understand something is to listen, watch, do and immerse in it. I do eventually want to be accepted into omni cyber, I'll re-apply as many times as it takes until I'm seen as ready.

[Psychokinetic Wannabe]

Mindlessinvalid, I would use the search function of the forum (Upper middle/right, where your log-in and PM links are, in case you don't already know) for "Hard Magic". While I'm not so picky, most people are less tempted to explain stuff when there's little indication that someone tried to look for the answer themselves.

Anyway, based on the the public info, Hard Magic is not linked to manifestation in physical reality. It's a category of magic that's linked to working with, well 'hard' magical energy. Pretty much, start with the supposition that everything we work with when we normally do magic is 'gaseous' energy. As in, it flows, it's light, not very dense, it can easily be blown around. If you have the right tools you can easily suck it up, compress it, etc. That's what most energy around us is.

Basically, it's like how physical matter has different states: Bose-Einstein Condensate, Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma, etc. This is the same thing, except there's either less different states or the Omnis who are at the point where they can work with hard magic haven't found/classified/defined them as rigidly/specifically. So you have the more typical fluid (comparable to gas) state, and then you have the hard (comparable to solid) state.

The only difference between the two that's been explicitly stated on the public forums if I recall correctly is that hard magic will always keep its shape and properties. Once you make it, it will not change unless something powerful enough to work with hard magic effects it. On the other hand, gaseous magic needs at least miniscule amounts of power to keep it's shape and properties, or else it will eventually degrade. (More knowledgeable people might want to correct this though, if my limited knowledge on the subject caused me to word it in some misleading way.)

The most detailed discussion of Hard Magic in the public parts of the forum is in the "Astral Biology?" thread. I suggest reading through that and seeing if that answers your questions.

[Mindlessinvalid]

the way I see things, I'll learn about it (hard magic)eventually. Given my tendency to misunderstanding, trying to understand it without the aid of a teacher is a bad idea for me.

I read a fair bit of the astral biology thread previously, but only saw passing mentions of hard magic. I must admit though, I did not read the entire thing.

[Oyama]

Psychokinetic Wannabe is correct, Hard Magic is a classification for superdense energy structures that keep their shape without maintenance. If you make an energy ball but then stop thinking about it and don't tell it to keep its shape, it will dissipate over time unless something else takes over maintaining it. Hard magic sticks around even if nothing maintains it.

Also, Hard Magic does have some interesting effects when applied in practical spell work.

the way I see things, I'll learn about it (hard magic)eventually. Given my tendency to misunderstanding, trying to understand it without the aid of a teacher is a bad idea for me.

You could still read through the topics. Even if you don't fully understand something, there's enough there to answer a lot of the questions you might have, such as this one about Hard Magic. It may also inspire more questions, which you are free to ask here, and if they get answered, your understanding increases. It's worth your while if you're really that gung-ho about Omni.

So basically, in practicing rudimentary tech I need to get into habit of telling energy what to do with other energy first, then worry about tweaking effectiveness later?

You need to get into that mindset to begin with, yes, although you can worry about effectiveness at any time. The whole point of telling energy what to do with other energy is to increase effectiveness.

This way my spells don't burn down, but rather function until a defined point of termination is reached?

This doesn't have anything to do with tech, really. You could accomplish that by simply programming a spell to terminate under certain conditions and making sure it has the resources not to dissolve beforehand.

I want to learn, and I don't care how far down the ladder the training starts before it gets good. I just want knowledge for the sake of understanding, and the only way to understand something is to listen, watch, do and immerse in it. I do eventually want to be accepted into omni cyber, I'll re-apply as many times as it takes until I'm seen as ready.

You should come to Crucible.

[Mindlessinvalid]

Crucible is in New Jersey, correct? I'm on the other side of the country.
I'm tied to my location for now, so I'd not be able to make it even if I did have transportation and the funds to go on a road trip.

I'm only so gung-ho about getting into omni because magic is IMO a way to learn about the universe, and I don't want religious baggage getting in the way. I want something I can devote time to without letting go of a neutral stance.

[Psychokinetic Wannabe]

I'm only so gung-ho about getting into omni because magic is IMO a way to learn about the universe, and I don't want religious baggage getting in the way. I want something I can devote time to without letting go of a neutral stance.

Well, regardless of your reasons, if the Omni application asks "have you read the site yet", doesn't that suggest that Omni would prefer you to have read what you can find on the site about the subjects you ask basic questions about?

Not to be a dick - who am I kidding? Being a dick is fun - but does a research institution give you a grant and access to a laboratory just on your wish to devote time to something, when you don't devote time to, say, read the class textbook? Yes, not being officially in Omni isn't being in class, but the analogy holds for what it's relevant to.

I know that's not always an accurate standard, because some people really need something to seem new and shiny, or a feeling of certainty that they are on the right track, before they start innovating, but as someone's who's like that by nature, I know that's something that can be over-come. There's ridiculously many things to learn here on the public forums. The irony is, over time, this forum has built up a ridiculous amount of formerly-classified info. I learned more about the bigger-picture of the nature of the universe in making a few posts in my Various Inquiries thread than I learned so far in class (but, to be fair, I'm part of the latest wave and we're still on the 'probationary', pre-G1 material).

Also, Hard Magic does have some interesting effects when applied in practical spell work.

See, my half-joking first guess is "it makes everything better". But that's not very scientific.

I can imagine that the power circuity of spells can have their capacity increased exponentially a few times over, since you can make either a conductive line or a hollow tube that will take that much more flow before it's super dense structure falters... I'm guessing that the Omni Power Source alluded to elsewhere in the public thread is also hard-magic. Or at least the fuel might be compressed into it. Actually, I'm tempted to think it might be something like a nuclear reaction, but, you know, with the hard magic and the astral physics in more dimensions than anyone should ever have to think about, rather than a sudden burst of physical matter splitting.

Seriously though, beyond that, and making ridiculously hard-to-break stuff, I can't think of specific interesting effects without a greater understanding.

On the other hand, I like that the fact that I'm still not deep enough in Omni knowledge that I can speculate here in public without revealing a bunch of Omni-only info.

[Mindlessinvalid]

the way I see things, I'll learn about it (hard magic)eventually. Given my tendency to misunderstanding, trying to understand it without the aid of a teacher is a bad idea for me.

I read a fair bit of the astral biology thread previously, but only saw passing mentions of hard magic. I must admit though, I did not read the entire thing.