Cheb wrote:There are more elegant and simple solutions not involving energy at all, like split realities. The beauty of this approach is that in it the magic doesn't contradict the laws of physic as we know them.
Uh... It is elegant, however...
If you're going to be going about and bringing in split realities and whatnot, why not, instead, just go out on a limb and say that our current understanding of physics is incomplete - thus, no handwave of 'magic overrode physics', and no need to play around and split hairs to try to make different events 'sorta fit within the known laws of physics, kinda, if you look at it in a certain way'...
Besides which, wouldn't contacting or drawing out that one of the infinite possibilities require certain abilities that aren't exactly present within the human frame, so far as our current research goes? I mean, that exact same trick is a near-ultimate power in one fictional world (Marble Phantasm). Bluntly... If you need to say our current research is incomplete just to pass off your system of getting 'magic' to work within our currently-researched laws of physics... Just simplify it and say that the current research on physics is incomplete - there, done, no need for parallel realities.
Especially considering that, not having a direct compilation of the universe's source code, our research is incomplete.
... Since I'm starting to fall asleep at the keyboard, I'm going to hope that was coherent, got my point across, and was sufficiently non-insulting - if any are false hopes, inform me and I will make steps to correct them.
antimatterenergy wrote:Also you can theoretically move to a place faster than light by means of a wormhole or a Alcubierre drive. (neither of which are possible to create with current technology but both do not break the laws of physics.)
That's not moving faster than light, though. That's taking a detour. You get there quicker than the light does, but that's because you took a shorter route.
Forum Troll wrote:Just about every scientific fact will be shown to be wrong in some instance eventually as we find better ways to observe reality. In my opinion of course
Hm, I wouldn't go so far as to say 'just about every' one... But science isn't the be-all and end-all of the universe until someone finds the universe's source code, it doesn't have all the answers, it does make mistakes, and anyone who believes any of those three statements to be false is foolish, blind, and completely unable to grasp the actual nature of science (it's a quest, not a goddamn holy text!) - and barely any different from the religious literalists who that personality type tends to scorn.
Whoa, that was long and vehement for 'ditto'.
Also the choosing of probability method sounds extremely like the rune magic found in the Death Gate Cycle by Weis and Hickman. Only difference is the people in those books had to use runes to choose and bring the chosen possibility into effect.
It's identical to Marble Phantasm from Tsukihime, except that MP doesn't bother with parallel universes.
