Category Archives: blog

blog

Final Expressions of War

Leave a comment

This article is perhaps odd, since it’s not about how to wage war, but war would look like in its final and most extreme technological forms. There are some core concepts, but the ideas in this article are somewhat loose.

The greater the scope you consider, the greater the powers that can dwell within it. When considering an infinitely large reality, the disparities in technology and force should become incomprehensible. It is guaranteed some power out there is arbitrarily greater than yours, no matter what. When the gulf of power is severe enough, there is absolutely no chance for resistance.

Examples of severe disparity:

  • Using thermobaric weapons on a castle guarded by knights and ballistae.
  • First-strike nuclear capability is a marginal but significant example of disparity at the heart of Cold War technology races. If you could deliver a nuclear payload to a target faster than the target could deploy a response, then you would be able to attack with impunity: mutually assured destruction would fail.
  • Orbital bombardment of a society that cannot reach the stars.
  • Wielding weapons that cannot be built within the constraints of the universe they are being used in.
  • Scanning space in all direction for heat signals, only for dust to fall from the sky, but each grain of dust becomes a warhead by dint of what we’d consider magic or exotic physics.
  • The ability to alter the physical laws in which the war takes place.
  • Being attacked by a higher-dimensional entity: imagine how much a 2-dimensional force could do to you, no matter how sophisticated they are, as long as you stand to the side of them in a 3rd-dimension. A 2-dimensional weapon of mass destruction could be sidestepped, while you’d be able to touch their internal organs at will. We are similarly vulnerable to 4th-dimensional attacks.

War by unmaking

War by unmaking is a method of war that relies on categorical technological superiority. Unmaking is done by a total saturation attack, completely destroying the target civilization. The territory can then be rebuilt. So, a war of unmaking requires massive military superiority and the ability to efficiently undo the damage you produced. If you could efficiently terraform, for instance, orbital bombardment of an entire planet wouldn’t be too big a deal and would eliminate even powerful, subterranean defenses. Wars of unmaking can happen on relatively minor advantages, so long as they grant sufficient disparity.

At the highest point, one party savagely obliterates another, even destroying planets or planes or what have you, and then brings in a planesmaker to mold the plane into a favorable shape and erase unfavorable conditions.

Limitations:

  • Unmaking requires total destruction and reconstruction. There is no recycling, no occupation.
  • Destruction is easier than construction. If the targeted territory is to be occupied after, you have to be able to undo the damage you inflict.
  • The expense is considerable.
  • It may not be possible to guarantee no survivors, especially if the targeted class has wayfaring members.
  • War by unmaking is an atrocity by any standard. If a civilization possesses the power to unmake another, the other can only survive so long as a moral leader is in place. The mere possession of this power creates fear and animus (a benefit to some). It creates enemies, even besides survivors.
  • It takes time. If we do assume there’s an entity that can unmake us, we survive either because it is moral, its conquest hasn’t reached us, or it does not care to conquer us.
  • Expansion risks running into more powerful civilizations. Encountering a more powerful entity that can unmake you is not a desired result when unmaking.

Alternative theories

Other models of war arise from what parts of unmaking you cannot or will not perform:

  • Being sane
  • The inability to restore conquered territory if you’re seeking expansion
  • Territorial occupation as a goal/nonreplacement of the conquered population

These qualities lead to different needs in war. An occupying force, for instance, must identify targets, whereas a saturation attack need make no distinctions. Exerting control over a population requires all kinds of alternative considerations, like judiciaries and guards and postings and schedules and whatnot. Beyond-Visual-Range combat is also generally impossible for an occupier: someone has to be in range to identify targets and hostiles will force conflicts only if they can actually reach you. It’s not on your own terms.

Other Notes of Final War

  • Whether the target is aware of an advanced attack or not is mostly an aesthetic choice. If they cannot defend, it may not matter much (except, perhaps, for reasons like propaganda).
  • Almost all warfare would be beyond visual range and, certainly, at great enough ranges that counterattacks are not possible. These ranges may necessitate their own exotic technologies to mitigate the effects of distance: a war is not terribly effective if, in the millions of years it takes your missiles to travel between stars, the target invents adequate defenses.
  • Within visual range, intercept should be essentially instantaneous. A computer can be trained to destroy anything that moves if target identification isn’t a concern. With basic data integration, a computer should even be able to destroy targets mixed in with friendlies. Adequate scanners and high speed technologies should make intercept at greater ranges incredibly swift. This note is largely based on an issue I have with scifi films: laser cannons shouldn’t miss. There is no reason for their aim to not be computer-aided and, seeing as modern targeting isn’t that far off from being able to do this, there’s no reason to believe a scifi civilization wouldn’t be able to. While missiles, railguns, and the like have issues such as the need to lead shots and adjust aim based on the target’s evasive maneuvers, weaponized lasers have no such issues. Even accounting for things like atmospheric refraction, humidity, and other factors, sufficiently intense lasers will be less affected. But a sophisticated targeting system would be able to fire off a few high-speed shots and use the errors to rapidly correct targeting, even in an unfamiliar environment. In a familiar environment, such factors can be directly integrated into the targeting.
  • Battles where there is no disparity advantage or disparities balance each other out can be planned out months or years in advance. Generally, this makes human control unnecessary, but that depends on how the final moments need to play out. Missiles, for instance, are unlikely to be bothered by evasive maneuvers at long-range, but may not be able to correct their targeting at short ranges. This can be mitigated by implementing a massive warhead, but this can be countered by destroying the missile, etc. So, battles at parity are all about the ability to one-up the other and anticipate the other’s technologies and moves.
  • Targeting systems may be essential, making spotters, hacking, terminal guidance systems, and the like important. These may be much more vulnerable than normal weapons installations.

blog

FETH: Abyss & the State of Exception

Leave a comment

I see people wonder why the Church of Seiros would tolerate Abyss, especially the presence of criminals and religious dissidents. The answer to this one is relatively simple: Abyss is what is called a State of Exception.

A state of exception exists when a government deliberately creates an area of lawlessness, or more exactly, a place where the law is not applied in the same way as it has been historically/elsewhere. The people living within a state of exception live within exceptions to the law. Governments may have any number of motives to establish a state of exception. Bad motives include how a state of exception allows the government to violate its own laws/use more violence than normal. Lawlessness can also be useful if members of the government have black market or other unethical interests (one of Aelfric’s motivations). Better reasons for a state of exception may be to respond to a crisis (states of emergency are sometimes states of exception) or to establish a refuge for people who cannot exist in normal society (Aelfric’s initial motivation and a reason to allow Abyss to survive post-Aelfric).

The theory of states of exception is largely developed by Giorgio Agamben. He points to Nazi Germany and Guantanamo Bay as real-life examples. I was exposed to the concept by Jason de León’s book The Land of Open Graves, where he argues that the US-Mexico border is a state of exception.

The key to a state of exception is that the condition of lawlessness is a deliberate creation of the state itself. This makes it different from a region where the law is absent or has lost control (as often occurs in border regions, colonies, and the like). Looking at Abyss, the specific principles in suspense are: the supremacy of the aristocracy, the supremacy of the church, and general penal law. The aristocracy and church do not assert their power over the Abyssians (the aristocracy cannot assert its power, while the church can assert its power if it so desires, but generally does not).

Other examples in Fire Emblem include the various nations seized by cults (Nohr under Iago, Plegia, Rigel under the Duma cult). Nonexamples include western and southwestern Zofia (overrun by pirates and bandits, not government-created), the Ylisse side of the Ylisse-Plegia border before the Shepherds stabilize the region (the instability is created by an enemy state, not the state itself), and Ylisse in Lucina’s timeline (assuming Grima did not somehow become the head of state and legally enforce his destruction). Valla strikes me more as a failed state rather than a state of exception (it definitely has some state of exception kind of stuff going on, but we don’t really see if Vallan law has survived in any way past whatever Anankos orders in the moment).

[Originally for r/fireemblem]

blog

Fates: Ethnic and Ideological Conflict

Leave a comment

As things stand, Fire Emblem Fates (FEF hereafter, because saying FEF aloud is cute) is the ugly duckling of modern Fire Emblem. In the wake of Three Houses, it is easy to see it as an aberration whose main value is making FETH possible (and I would definitely say we should appreciate how FETH would not be near so beautiful if not for FEF). It is true that FEF is, in many ways, incomplete and the writing… we can still mourn those poor souls who chose Corrin X Azura before Revelations revelated certain revelations. But, as Borges observed, even though every writer judges each other for what is accomplished, every writer wishes to be judged according to what they hinted at (Como todo escritor, medía las virtudes de los otros por lo ejecutado por ellos y pedía que los otros lo midieran por lo que vislumbraba. – The Secret Miracle). FEF is deeply flawed, yes, but you can really get a sense of some brilliant ideas that the writers did not have the chance to explain or develop, whether or not they intended to do so.

I submit that FEF puts forward themes largely absent in its counterparts. FEF depicts meaningful ethnic conflict and ideological schisms as they are experienced by the participants. By contrast, Fodlán’s diversity exists mostly by implication. FETH’s cast is a cross-section of the elite, who are nearly ethnically homogenous, with token representation of the different minorities. The key countries all share their history. The wars within Fodlán are not particularly ethnic, besides the Agarthan perspective. Awakening’s cast draws from 2 continents and many ethnicities, but Awakening generally does not focus on characters’ or regions’ pasts. Shadows of Valentia has a similar setup to FEF, but is all-around simpler.

Ethnicity is a conjunction of history, nationality, race, religion, ideology, and culture. Ethnicities form however people choose to group themselves together. FEF is focused on two ethnicities: Nohrians and Hoshidans. These ethnicities are historically, politically, culturally, religiously, and ideologically in conflict (race, sadly, is underexplored, although there is racial differentiation between the two parties). Hoshidans see themselves as productive, successful beneficiaries of bountiful land, with a hospitable culture and benevolent approach to foreigners. Nohrian self-image is less pleasant; their identity is permeated with desperation for resources and the closeness to conflict and death that comes from living in an infertile, hostile environment. Nohrians experience more violence and poverty than Hoshidans, but they are also quicker to help and forgive people on the wrong side of life (evidenced by how Hoshidan retainers are largely hereditary, while the Nohrian retainers are often people rescued from desperate circumstances or pardoned and converted to productive activity). These two groups are merely centralizers in a broader swirl of interacting races and ethnicities, fighting to maintain their identities against the influence of their neighbors. These smaller groups take positions of neutrality, appeasement, revolt, and alliance to survive, with varying success.

The different histories, identities, and values of FEF’s nameless continent are in a constant clash. Consider how the members of the different tribes (Rinkah, Felicia, Flora <3, Hayato) present themselves while living in Hoshido or Nohr. They tend to affix themselves to their cultures’ values, more so than they would if they were among their own people, perhaps. When members of an ethnicity are isolated, they often seek to represent their peoples and values well. This can make them play into stereotypes and is especially difficult when they try to follow cultural norms that weren’t designed for life among foreigners (e.g., Rinkah and the law of isolation).

Speaking broadly, both Hoshidan and Nohrian perspectives have their merits. Hoshidans are conflict-averse and do well in those circumstances. However, much of their value system survives only in fair weather. In battle, they struggle to empathize with the enemy or behave magnanimously (worst exemplified when Ryoma denies safe passage to the Nohrians for a medical mission to save Elise. It is true he had no duty to aid the enemy, but being a good person in wartime is not a question of one’s duty). Hoshidans do not take the needs of Nohrians seriously. Even in peacetime, Hoshidans are content to ignore international conditions as they prosper. In contrast, Nohrian culture isn’t very aspirational, in good times or in bad. They are good at coexisting with people of different beliefs and behaviors, but they are too cautious in rebuking and combating corruption (this reaching a boiling point at the time of Fates).

Nohr’s internal ethnic struggle merits extra study. Nohr’s historical religion reveres the Dusk Dragon, but Nohr’s current crisis is based in a radical new religion taking root. The religious component is underplayed in the game, but the brilliant manga Nibelung’s Crown emphasizes this point (https://www.reddit.com/r/fireemblem/comments/86wgz0/fe14_fire_emblem_fates_nibelungs_crown_volume_i/?ref=share&ref_source=link). It’s important to remember that the primary method to effect change in monarchies is violence, to force a regime change, or control the monarch. Iago, the ideological leader and prime beneficiary of the Anankos Cult’s rise, provokes a violent, internal struggle for the religious and political control of the kingdom. (Radicalization could have been a sufficient explanation for Garon’s change in behavior from negligent but benign to corrupt and exploitative. Alas, Revelations decided to make him secretly an undead puppet instead.) A heretic, in medieval society, is a social contagion and unredeemable. They were considered to be a form of terrorist who brought destruction through ideas, rather than violence. This is the circumstances Nohrian society faces: the acceptable social behaviors become narrower and narrower and tolerance for disagreement disappears as a new, radical orthodoxy replaces the old semiliberal order.

Throughout all these conflicts, Fates does something interesting: we almost never take a step back. The characters are active participants, without the benefits of hindsight. They are too proximate to the issues to analyze themselves in an archaeological sense. They have to make decisions and justify their decisions in the moment. They do not understand what is happening as it happens. Objectively, many of the heroes are bigots, rash, cruel, intolerant. Subjectively, there’s almost nothing that would make them realize that. And so, they continue in their errors. And while games like FETH, where the characters understand better what they are doing, are brilliant, there is value and shades of reality in how FEF’s cast is so much more caught up in the moment, in their histories, identities, and ethnicities.

This is about all I have to say on the subject for now, but I wrote this because I want to talk about Fates in a positive light. Even if the games are imperfect, they are hated more than they deserve. The story, for all its faults, does things that the other modern FE games do not. And, on account of the hate, there’s beautiful analysis that remains undone. Fates is not just a steppingstone towards better, later games. When it comes to FEF, there’s a lot to love.

[Originally for r/fireemblem]

blog

Ace Combat 7: On Singularities (for the curious)

Leave a comment

Mr. North uses the term singularity within the context of dynamical systems. A mathematical field, a singularity is a point that determines the behavior of the points around it. (Within the field and related areas, singularities may be called attractors, nodes, fixed/periodic points, sinks/sources/saddle points/centers.) Since Mr. North is a systems analyst who uses predictive models, it is all too natural for him to use the term singularity. When creating a prediction based on a system model, only two things matter: the singularities of the system and where we start. Singularities completely control the outcomes of their systems. We only care about the starting point because it determines which singularity we will be governed by.

When two singularities compete for a single space, different areas of space will fall into one or the other singularity’s influence. On the boundary, there may be rather erratic and unpredictable behavior. In this case, mission completion and the fate of individual pilots, Oured, etc. are near the boundary. Since we can’t be totally sure which side of the boundary each item will actually fall, we cannot predict their ultimate fate. Mission success means enough key points fall into Trigger’s region, while failure is the same but with Torres.

If Trigger is the only singularity, Osean victory is guaranteed. If Torres is the only singularity, he will win. The difficulty is in their interaction and, since Alex didn’t have much data to study how the two singularities would interact while in the same space, it’s only natural for the AI to deny the request.

Now, through most of DLC missions 1-3, the term could be replaced with any phrase meaning [something influential]. However, Alex’s justification for keeping Trigger alive points directly to Trigger’s effect on battlefields, which are dreadfully complicated systems (and, if Trigger weren’t a supernatural pilot with even more supernatural weapons carrying capacity, filled with countless and unknown singularities). Despite all the competing influences in Trigger’s battles, he always increases survival rate. Nothing short of a singularity is that consistent. Beyond Alex, at the very end of mission 3, Mr. North speaks in strongly dynamical terms: Torres brought those in his orbit to destruction, while Trigger brings those around him into security (which Alex emphasizes: Stick with trigger, and you’ll make it). Singularities don’t just influence those around them, singularities determine their fate.

Some interesting references:

Depiction of how changing a single parameter in a system can cause the number of singularities to go from 1 to infinity: https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B9780128158388000091-f09-14-9780128158388.jpg?_

Relevant wikipedia article. I’d point you to the image that provides a nice rundown of singularity classifications in 2 dimensions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_theory

Chaos (in the mathematical sense) is a result of an infinite number of singularities operating over a space. Weather prediction happens to be a chaotic system, which is why weather estimates only go out 10 days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system

When chaos exists, if our initial measurements/evaluation of the situation is not perfectly correct, then our predictions will be wrong no matter how small the error, as demonstrated in the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xu-9D4ahVU

[Originally for r/acecombat]

blog

Umwelt

Leave a comment

An umwelt (plural: umwelten) is a given creature’s world. The creature creates their own umwelt as they learn about the outside world through their perception. The outside world is, for its part, called the umgebung.

A creature cannot learn about the umgebung without its senses. We have no other way to gain knowledge. This forces us to consider the strengths of and weaknesses of our ability to perceive. Everything we consider true about the world is dependent on the accuracy of our observations. Look around you. Your mental concept of walls and floors is probably smooth, by convenience. But walls usually aren’t that smooth at all, even though they’re more or less flat. Your umwelt does not contain the texture of the floor until you specifically observe it and incorporate it into your worldview. When you walk past a brick building, is every single brick part of your umwelt? No, you have not observed the bricks individually, but only as a whole.

These examples are usually inconsequential, but contemplate how varied human perception is. Every person represents a unique idea, an emotional framework built on experiences filtered through perception. Physical disabilities all immediately impact umwelten, but so does a kind upbringing or a cruel mentorship. Mental illness, physical illness, trauma, kindness, changes in how big or small the world seems, pure knowledge: they all can and will change a person’s umwelt forever.

You have your own umwelt. For myself, I believe most, maybe all, people should be treated with kindness and that kindness exists on some level in all people, if they should choose to access it. I want to believe that one can generally trust another. What would it take for a child soldier to believe the same things? If they had seen their kind (or cruel) parents killed, if they had been tortured until they became willing to kill, and the very act of survival turned them into the things they hated most? When that same child miraculously survives and grows up, only to become a war criminal because they could not escape that lifestyle or adapted to it too successfully? Or a young person from a rural family, promised work in a safer, more stable place, who arrive in a strange land only to be kidnapped by those who were supposed to be their provider? When they are drugged, never hearing any speech in a language they understand, beaten and abused as chattel? If we do not contemplate the natural beliefs of people in such dire circumstances, we cannot hope to understand our fellow people.

In corollary, there are also the umwelten of people like Nadia Murad, humans rights activists who are themselves victims, or Maria Gaetana Agnesi, a Catholic polymath raised in an unusually liberal climate who ignored her appointment by the Pope as the second female university professor ever to teach children and take care of the sick.

Moving past the individual, umwelten also form across species. Jakob von Uexküll, the creator of the umwelt concept, was fascinated with the umwelten of creatures like ticks and jellyfish, both of which are blind. Consider how the world you believe in would be different, had you been 1. born blind, 2. became blind after learning to see, and 3. the whole human race was blind and had never learned of such a thing as seeing. Variances in the individual umwelten are only further complicated because these variances are determined within the boundaries determined by the circumstances of our birth: species, upbringing, civilization, culture, nationality, technology, race, gender. Our experiences infuse meaning into our world that we will never be able to communicate to someone without the same experiences.

Before we even arrive at questions of language, word choice, and empathy, perfect communication is already impossible, because we cannot perceive the experiences that give meaning to words. Even when we are coparticipants or observers of a relevant experience, we have not perceived the experience as the umwelt creator did. We cannot know what they focus on, what memories they use to infuse meaning into their current experience. This means that concepts like consent and agreement, so essential for our coexistence, are only ever partial. Why do lawyers draft hundred-page contracts? Because the contracting parties have no way of knowing how much their umwelten have in common. They only have belief: beliefs about the deal they believe they are making and beliefs about what the deal they think the other party thinks they are making. When two umwelten interact, we have a semiosphere, whether we are contracting, reading this essay, or trying to be understand someone else.

Many social problems begin with the problems of forming a good semiosphere. These problems, however, are all external. A similar, but possibly greater problem, is that of the innenwelt. The innenwelt is the you that you create within your umwelt. You cannot learn anything about yourself, save what you perceive. However, there is no bound on the number of filters between the you who puts information out and the you who perceives that information. When you contemplate your own mind, you create separate selves to act and perceive. You do not perceive yourself as part of the umgebung, as you may a brick or insect. You only perceive what you yourself present. When you present information to another, if you try to learn about yourself through that information, you must wait until it passes through the other person’s umwelt and then comes back however they present it. Many of the difficulties of life amount to difficulties in forming an innenwelt. Endless stories have been written for characters who fail to form their innenwelt. Are Borges’ stories anything but his characters’ innenwelten falling apart or manifesting, in turn representing Borges’ pursuit of his own innenwelt? Even the sciences, contemplation of the umgebung, stem from the pursuit of the innenwelt: creating the self by recreating the universe (of which the self is part) within the mind.

Takeaway

Lest this be mistaken for idle philosophy, I would like to say a few things. As you become more aware of your own umwelt and the umwelten of all other life, you necessarily learn things that should change who you are. You must be conscious of your own fragility, as a weak body of flesh vulnerable to all manner of disease and injury, but also as a mind. It is a fact that a sizable percentage of what you believe is false. However, you will never know how much is false or in which way you’re wrong. You cannot know, in truth and in spirit, whether your errors are fundamental or nuanced. You do not know whether another person knows a thing, you may only believe. No matter how objectively wrong someone may be within the umgebung, they may be speak pure truth within their umwelt.

First, be understanding. It doesn’t matter if it’s a disagreement, a misunderstanding, an argument, or whatever. You do not know the condition of another’s umwelt and innenwelt (or even, really, the condition of your own). What they believe may not be True, but it is true enough for them, as they currently are.

Second, be gentle. That truth, no matter how robust or weak, is the sum of a life of learning through pain and hope, curiosity, success and disappointment. Do not force another person’s umwelt to become yours. Let them form it themselves, while providing compelling evidence that they are loved.

Third, be kind. The more I contemplate the umwelten, the more I am terrified. People hurt a lot under all circumstances. Do not add to their suffering. It may be incredibly difficult for you to beautify or love your own umwelt, but you can make things better through goodness to others.

In particular, encourage the kind, the gentle, the pure, the childlike, whose umwelten are precious and beautiful above all others. Such are often discouraged as naive, immature, or idealistic. The answer is to help them to become harmless as doves, cunning as serpents, not to turn their kindness against them. Contemplating the umwelten of such people is a pure blessing, So, I repeat what I said and end: encourage the kind, the gentle, the pure, the childlike, whose umwelten are precious and beautiful above all others.

See also

Wikipedia

Flip Flappers, reading about this anime introduced me to the umwelt concept.

Sonder, an exercise or experience in which you contemplate the umwelten of those around you. Bringing people into your umwelt as individuals, instead of as components of a collective image.

Neuroscience Readies for a Showdown Over Consciousness Ideas, an article by Quanta Magazine featuring Integrated Information Theory, a related theory of conscious I find very exciting.

The Guilty, a film that implements this concept well without invoking it. An excellent example of sympathetic storytelling.

blog

Historical period comparisons in FETH 

Leave a comment

I’ve seen a number of people refer to FETH as a medieval game, but it’s probably most similar to a mid-Renaissance experience. It’s definitely not medieval: the role of literacy, existence of learning institutions, prevalence of chivalric tales, the appearance of durable religious schisms/reformers/separatists, and somewhat mature sciences (esp. medicine, math, crests) are all Renaissance, esp. Renaissance features.

The late Renaissance/Enlightenment don’t fit on a philosophical level: no pseudoreligious scientism, no concepts of human rights/social contract, insufficiently developed literature (novels, broader literacy), and exclusively aristocratic forms of government.

Early Renaissance doesn’t fit since it is a period of knowledge rediscovery, translation of ancient and foreign texts, and restoration of philosophies and sciences. Nothing in the history of Fodlan even suggests an Early Renaissance period would be required, since what history we have doesn’t mention a period of knowledge loss and the disorganization of civilization (that is, a medieval period). If anything, the longevity of the Empire makes such a period unlikely.

There might be good comparisons to the Islamic Golden Age, since that predates the Renaissance and shares a lot of qualities, but I don’t really know that much about it. And for that matter, my background is in Spanish-American and mathematical history, so it’s not like I’m entirely sure my recollection of Renaissance history is correct.

Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. Any thoughts?

Added: One thing missing is firearms, but early firearms wouldn’t have been able to compete with magic, so it’s quite plausible that the technology would never be developed.

[Originally posted on Aug. 19, 2019 for r/fireemblem]