From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy)
Subject: Re: Axiom levels, etc.
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:13:14 GMT

> Main point:
> But could it not be true that in the process of OBSERVING the existing
> laws of Aristotlean physics, some brilliant astronomers CHANGED them?
> 
> At least, that is what I believe the changing of a Tech axiom represents:
> incremental changes to the actual laws of Physics. 

Does a change from Aristotelian to Copernican cosmology change the way
that the planets move, or merely how people _believe_ that the planets
move?

Until Galileo dropped the two cannonballs from the Leaning Tower of
Pisa, the _accepted_ physical law was that heavy objects fell faster
than lighter objects; this was accepted as something that was clearly
true, with no proof being needed.

> Aside:
> As for where items are placed in the Tech chart, I suggest that, since 
> (probably) experts disagree when such technology was used, that you'll 
> likely be able to find all kinds of inconsistencies. As for your compass 
> example, perhap TL12 (or 17, can't remember) is the first Tech level at 
> which the stabilized compass was produced, making oceangoing navigation 
> much easier.

The Tech chart is incredibly Eurocentric in nature, and has nothing to
do with the laws of physics per se, but define what will and will not
work or be believed on the basis of when the advances came in Western
history. Was the Tech axiom of Earth higher in China than everywhere
else until the Renaissance? The MesoAmerican cultures (Aztec, Maya,
Toltec, Inca) displayed Tech 11 medical skills and extensive
irrigation and acqueduct systems (Tech 10), but never developed the
wheel as a form of transportation (Tech 5) or metal armor (Tech 8).

> Another aside:
> You mention the airplane's gliding as a function of its wing shape --
> in CE Tech 23, this law of physics holds. However, perhaps under Living
> Land axioms it doesn't. As a result, the example should have had the
> plane plummet from the sky, but I also realize that attempting to
> put too much into in introductory player's scenario would defeat the
> main purpose of that scenario: allowing new players (and GMs) to get the
> feel of spending Possibilities and using the bonus chart.

Birds fly; insects fly. If the laws of physics permit flight, then a
machine which passively exploits those laws can fly, but it takes the
capability to _comprehend_ that law as something which can be
exploited before a flying machine can be created. The LL Tech axiom is
too low to permit someone bound by its axioms to understand the laws
that make it possible for a 'made thing' to fly.

> Last aside:
> You mentioned the problem with bows, yet in a following refutation you
> talk about the higher mass stick being able to transmit more energy
> into the arrow, thereby introducing high TL concepts into a low TL
> example. Living Land physics may not work in the same way. I can see
> an Edeinos refuting your argument: "Energy? Mass? Huh? It's a bow -
> and all bows inflict blessed painful sensations!"

Okay, if you want me to render it into Tech 7 equivalents: A bent
stick will try to straighten out, and will push against anything
keeping it bent; a thicker stick will try harder, and will push
harder. A bow uses this push to throw an arrow; if the bow pushes
harder, the arrow will be thrown harder. Bows are made from sticks;
so, to get a bow that throws arrows harder, you use a thicker stick
when you make the bow.

-- 
random sig #1:
Sean Malloy                                  | A child of five could understand
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | this.
San Diego, CA 92152-6800                     | Fetch me a child of five.
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil                        | 
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg