Imagine you can create an avatar of yourself with the following properties.
1) The avatar cannot do anything you cannot do.
2) The avatar cannot do anything you cannot fail to do (e.g. the avatar cannot reflect light).
3) The avatar can do anything you can do not otherwise excluded by rule 2.
If I gave you this as a superpower, how would you break it?
Is the avatar able to be summoned and dispelled at will? Can it carry things into its dispelled state? Can those things come back when it's summoned again? Does it have to be standing next you you?
So what about things we could hypothetically do? I mean I am physically capable of playing the piano, I have all my limbs and the mental capacity to do so but I don't know how at this moment. Could the avatar play the piano?
Good parameter clarifications. It can be dispelled at will. It can be summoned at will but always appears at your current location (i.e. not where you last dispelled it or some location of your choosing) but until you dispel it you can walk it as far as you like, however it can't hear or see since you can't fail to hear or see (i.e. you can't voluntarily turn off your senses). The avatar can carry items, but if dispelled whatever it is carrying is dropped; summoning provides no hammer space in which to store objects.
The avatar can only do what you CAN do- i.e. basically you control it as a duplicate of yourself. It has no skill you don't already have.
What about gravity? If you cannot fail to fall, does the Avatar fall?
It would be exactly the same as having an additional party member with the same skillset and personality as myself.
Also, your wording is overcomplicated garbage; "an identical clone with exactly the same properties as you" is more than plenty.
You have failed to observe property 2. Cannot do what you cannot fail to do. The avatar has all of your active qualities and none of your passive qualities. What I want to know is if there is a meaningful exploit that results from lacking passive qualities.
Would it have the same clothing and gear as me? If it learns something and I dispell it will I know everything it knew when it existed? Obviously it would be the ultimate spy skill because it knows and acts the way I do so I can literally be in two places and pull off complex plans I trust myself to accomplish
so, I can create one avatar of myself who can do everything I can and cannot do anything I can't.
It stands to reason then, that the avatar itself can create another avatar of itself.
Seems pretty abusable.
>If I gave you this as a superpower, how would you break it?
Start systematically eliminating people I don't particularly appreciate while spending time with my friends and family for the sake of alibi.
so does it do things at the same rate or quality that you do? cause if not then it could be used to dramatically shorten anything that simply takes a long time.
Note you cannot fail to hear, feel, smell, and arguably see (is closing your eyes just seeing the back of your eyelids? Or does it genuinely shut off your brain's vision?). As such, your avatar is blind, deaf, and insensate, and therefore dependent upon you to guide it through its environment. Avatars are not independently thinking clones- they are instantiations of yourself, hence the term "avatar" and are an extension of your own actions. At any rate, you could probably leave it near a detonator switch of some sort, but you'd be very limited in performing complex tasks without being present yourself to guide it.
Clever. That indeed might be a problem. But then again maybe not- the avatars are insensate for starters, and furthermore you directly control them. You probably couldn't control 500 of them- you simply don't have the attention span to multitask that much. The upper limit is probably 2-3 at most, and then the rest just stand there. Given that limitation, is it still broken? How would you abuse it?
yes, it does things at the same rate.
>1) The avatar cannot do a set of actions X є R.
>2) The avatar cannot do a set of actions R\X.
>3) The avatar can do anything that isn't X, or R\X, meaning the avatar cannot do anything at all.
What the fuck are you on about, mate-o?
Anything I can do is not something I will fail to do.
Anything I will fail to do is not something I can do.
Ergo, the avatar is incapable of anything certain.
If the avatar is incapable both of doing anything that is either a certain success or a certain failure, then his only option is fuzzy logic and performing uncertain action, which may or may not exist at all in the universe.
But here you are, denying the capability uncertain actions - . So this avatar can't do fucking shit.
It can't even exist physically, because I cannot fail to exist physically, even if I die.
>cannot hear
>cannot feel
>cannot smell
>cannot see
>cannot feel pain
infinite catapult ammo.
This.
Or, for example: if I hold on to a light (as in not heavy) object and move my hand upwards, I cannot fail to lift the object. Does that mean that the avatar cannot lift the object by holding it and moving his hand upwards?
Sounds like a stand.
Your second point is very poorly worded.
Aren't you essentially just talking about a copy of yourself sans detectable physical presence? As worded, it's either useless or just obfuscated.
We seem to be parsing terms differently. By "cannot do things I cannot fail to do" I don't mean actions which I can perform with 100% success rate. I mean actions I literally cannot stop myself from doing. Like reflecting light. Or cellular healing. The avatar does not possess anything we might call an involuntary "action" your body takes on a macro or micro scale. However it can attempt voluntary actions at the same success rate you normally could.
Put another way, the actions available to you are the union of your avatar and your body in a vegetative state. Ergo, the avatar is what is left when you deduct from your set of actions the actions of a vegetative body.
This was meant to establish the bounds of what qualifies as an action. But the avatar is intended to possess supernatural properties as a result of not having a body.
Does that clarify things?
> I mean actions I literally cannot stop myself from doing
Like existing?
KEK OP BTFOOOOOO
B T F O
T
F
O
Like physically, existing, yes. The avatar is causality without physical embodiment. The literal definition of psychokinesis. The causality necessarily persists by definition, but persisting and existing aren't exactly the same, as persisting applies to verbs, whereas existing applies to nouns.
>cannot do anything you cannot fail to do
I cannot fail to exist
Avatar can't exist
I can create avatar
I can create something that doesn't exist
Let the ebin begin
Okay, let me rephrase that.
> I mean actions I literally cannot stop myself from doing
Like interacting with reality?
Ooh, even better, especially if you account into effect that you cannot fail to influence reality, because observer effect is a thing.
Face it, your definition is dumb. Either rephrase it, or don't ask dumb questions.
K E K
E
K
Jimmy status: savage
>observer effect is a thing
Are you talking about Quantum Mechanics? Because if so you need to relearn GRW. They aren't referring to human conscious observation.
>don't ask dumb questions
Oh. You're that kind of person. No wonder you never learned anything.
Mostly, yes. But separating causality from physics leads to some strange results. I'm trying to provide a logically concise division between the two, but I also want to make sure that concise division doesn't allow completely broken exploits. That would make it meaningless for my Veeky Forums purposes.
You create something that does not physically exists, but rather is an event that is merely persisting. This is not as profound as you seem to think. Its just psychokinesis described succinctly.
Normal definitions often say "10lbs of force" or "10N of force" if they're slightly more literate. But the definition is flawed for a variety of obvious reasons. Why not focus the force into a point and simply pierce my opponent? Why not simply crush their aorta or cerebrum? It's simply poorly defined. Especially for a more open ended superpower game where exploring the limitations of your power may be a critical focus.
>does not exist
>persisting
:^)
Honestly bro, give the fuck up with your 2nd clause. There is absolutely no need for it. Maybe something like:
The avatar cannot fail to do anything you cannot not do.
That would make the avatar omnipotent. Honestly, are you even trying? or just trolling?
It can't fall if you're a paladin.
Harvest organs?
>cannot not
How about
"The avatar must do anything you must do."
I think OP's definition makes sense (especially with the explanation in )
and you are being a bunch of babies.
well if my avatar can do anything I can do, then it should be able to control 'its' avatar just as well, recursive infinitely
so I wouldnt have to control all of them, I'd just need to give them a simple order down the chain like "obey my verbal commands to the best of your abilities" then I'd have an army of mes I could order around like a commander
So if I stab out my own eyes, can the avatar then see? And if so can I then see through it?
Just as he said, can a blind person's avatar see or a deaf person's hear?
On one hand, it cannot fail to not see or hear. on the other, It cannot see or hear because its master cannot. Which case is true?
everything in the universe is observing everything else, omae, he's perfectly right
come up with a scenario that isn't shit
>2) The avatar cannot do anything you cannot fail to do (e.g. the avatar cannot reflect light).
So it can't exist?
>Just as he said, can a blind person's avatar see or a deaf person's hear?
Nope, because that requires things the avatar can't do (be affected by outside forces, like light or sound waves).
And even if it could, it's impossible to determine since there's no feedback, as far as I can tell.
Explain to me how he becomes omnipotent again.