View Single Post
Old 07-22-2016, 01:05 PM   #90
Marwhini
Wight
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 144
Marwhini has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Formendacil View Post
As far as this goes, I can see how someone having a passion for both Tolkien and computers (or should I say "computational science?") would develop a sustaining interest in such a project. It is, however, quite far from the norm of the fandom around here--I'd say this forum skews Luddite rather than Early Adopter.

Except for one thing: it seems to me that you cannot proceed with this project without, in fact, having a criteria for establishing what is or is not "true" in Middle-earth. The comparison with an orrery sticks in my mind because you cannot construct an orrery without determining how the solar system actually moves: is it geocentric or sol-centric? In the case of Middle-earth this is no throwaway analogy: was Arda ever flat? Was it geocentric?
This remains a central problem we have encountered (what is "True" regarding the various things that have changed).

Many of the things can be altered with a simple variable swap (T/F), each of which has their own associating cascade of events following it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Formendacil View Post
And this brings me back to the question of canonicity (every few years, it seems, I get the itch to goad people back to that impossible topic): unless you are to make yourself the sole arbiter of what is true or not in Middle-earth--in which case it seems to me you'd be better off just creating your own world from scratch and admitting that it's based on Middle-earth--or you have to establish a rule by which to admit or deny Tolkien's own work.
The hope is to eventually have the Tolkien estate arbitrate that. We do have a problem there, in that Christopher remains the only real "Expert" in that regard.

But ultimately, the issue of what is "True" is not as difficult as you might think.

Because once you have a metaphysical Foundation, then the Physics of the world remains basically fixed, even if the features of the world are different (The Canon, or History).

So things like whether it is a Round World, or a Flat World, to begin with, would not matter in terms of how the "universe" operates. All that would be would be a feature of the universe.

This is sort of like how in our Universe, it doesn't matter if a Solar System has one planet, or ten planets. That all still obey the same rules.

Geocentrism or Heliocentrism likewise would not be an issue (we've already worked out a model that can transition from one to the other over any interval of time)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Formendacil View Post
And you're still going to end up with places where Tolkien is silent, at which point you have to fill in the blanks yourself. As I said, I can see how this is an attractive project to pursue, but surely it should be equally clear how someone not participating in the project might be cool to it: the project invites you to add your own decision-making and art, however measured, and this is bound to make the observation of the project less appealing to other Tolkien fans. As fans we tend to assume immense feelings of personal ownership regarding the objects of our obsession.

And that is our biggest problem. We have proposed a couple of means for how to get past either the historic gaps, or the metaphysical/theological gaps as well.

But there will remain some arbitrary decisions. That can't be avoided.

All that we are looking for is how to avoid Kludges wherever possible, such that everything that possibly can be based upon a Foundational Rule will be based upon a Foundational Rule.

Again, in a lot of these, it is just a matter of having the different theological or metaphysical options coded.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Formendacil View Post
One final point:



Let us grant for a moment that Tolkien's quotes mean exactly what you claim they do (personally, I do think they stretch QUITE so far, though I agree with that he sees Middle-earth as a rationally-constructed world), this does not mean that him stating this would make that so. Just because Tolkien SAYS that Middle-earth is based on operational rules does not make it so. For one thing, Tolkien lacked the Divine Omniscience necessary to ensure all these rules were kept proper and in play in the creation of all his fiction. For another, Tolkien is known to occasionally mis-characterise his own writings when reflecting on them from a later time.
Fortunately this isn't something we have encountered as a problem (Tolkien's lack of a "Divine Omniscience" creating problems).

The Area where we have discovered the most difficulty is in the Geology and the Meteorology.

But even in those areas we have found that there are solutions to the problems regarding Tolkien's lack of understanding in that area.

Also population Logistics seems to be a problem, as Middle-earth would likely have far many more occupants than we are given the impression of in the Novels.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Formendacil View Post
Perhaps the most pertinent point of all to my mind is that any such model of Middle-earth would have to be precisely that: A model. Not the model. In complete fairness to Marhwini, I should note that his explanations do say, multiple times statements of this nature: "an Operating Virtual World of Middle-earth," "a Model World of Middle-earth to be Instantiated," "a working System and Foundation." Of course, if it truly is only *A* model, then it is implicit that other models are possible on the same data--and the data of Middle-earth is self-conflicting and limited, unlike the real world, where we have the possibility of going out and acquiring more.
That is all we can do for our world as well.

That we lack a complete understanding of our world, and that it has enormous gaps, both epistemologically, and historically does not mean that we cannot make surprisingly accurate models.

And that we cannot refine them as time goes by and we learn more about the world in question.

Yes, there is a LOT of subjectivity to what we are doing.

But the ultimate project would allow others to take the finished product, and apply their own assumptions and imagery about Middle-earth, and thus obtain their own idea of the world.

This is a mistake people have about sciences in our world/universe as well:

That because something is based upon a Science, that it can only have one possible answer, ever.

That is like saying that Gravity remains constant across the entire Universe at 9.8m/s^2 (when we now it varies by a formulae set down by both Newton and Einstein).

Or that biology is only possible with one form of origin or biochemistry (Archeoforms and Extremophiles show this to not be true).

MB
Marwhini is offline   Reply With Quote