From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy)
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
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 16:02:52 GMT

> I think part of the problem that Sean's having with the idea that the
> laws of physics aren't the same under lower tech axioms is one that my
> players had for a long time, and that is that certain physical laws might
> not work, but on the whole, the concepts around the various laws of physics
> still hold true, and this simply isn't the case.

No, the problem I have is that the limits that the Tech axiom places
on what the laws of physics are in a given cosm are not internally
consistent. A bow is a bent stick; it resists being bent, and delivers
energy to an arrow when it returns as close as it can get to being
straight. A bigger, stronger stick is harder to bend; it will try to
straighten itself with more force if it is bent, and deliver more
force to an arrow. Unless there is a specific world law that states
otherwise, all sticks obey the same laws of physics for that cosm; if
a bigger stick is harder to bend than a smaller stick when they're on
a tree, it will remain harder to bend when you cut them off and make
bows from them.

> Take for example Aristotle's view of the universe:  Heavier elements, 
> like Earth and Water, fell to the center of the universe (ie the earth), while
> the lighter ones (air and fire) naturally rose.  Sublunar objects (things on
> earth) tended to move naturally in straight lines, while heavenly objects (
> the stars and planets) moved in circles (rise in the morning, set in the evening).
> Now, for a low-tech world, this makes perfect sense, and we _don't have to_
> apply our laws of physics to it for it to make sense.

It makes sense in a low-tech world because it is _consistent_ within
the limits of observation. Using your example of the Aristotelian
world-view, as soon as it was pointed out that various of the planets
did _not_ always move in circles (retrograde motion), then that
world-view no longer made sense; it took the addition of epicyclic
motion to bring the world-view back into accord with the perceived
reality.

> As another example, look at Aysle (I mean the Aysle from whence they came, not
> the part on Earth).  Their sun bobs up and down through the middle of their
> world.  This doesn't make any sense with _any_ of our laws of physics.  Yet it
> happens there.  The Laws of Physics Are Different In Other Cosms.

Actually, there are no problems with our laws of physics in having a
primary that bobs up and down through a central hole in a disk-shaped
world; where our physical laws fall down is in either a) the gravity
of Aysle always being normal to the surface that you are on, even near
the sun, or b) that the primary provides enough light and heat to
support the world without the mass that would be required for normal
fusion processes. If you handwave b) by declaring Aysle's sun to be a
magical source of light and heat, then you can make it arbitrarily
small in mass, so that a) goes away.

-- 
random sig #122:
Sean Malloy                                  | 
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | What this country needs is a good
San Diego, CA 92152-6800                     | five-cent nickel.
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil                        | 
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg