Where do elves get metal?

[Formendacil]

Marhwini, I think there are couple things about your pursuit of a Unified Theory that are ruffling our collective feathers, and it seems to me worth it to pursue them:

1. Tolkien's work is art. There are things within his books that take place not because it fits within a specific physics or metaphysics, but because it is artistically appropriate. The sciences most appropriate for analysing The Lord of the Rings is and will remain aesthetics, form criticism, or philology.

Tolkien definitely aimed for verisimilitude--most writers do and especially those writers who say things like "I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers." I certainly agree that thought was put into the "behind the scenes" mechanics of Middle-earth. Where I disagree is in thinking that these can be definitively revealed.

Perhaps the most apparent way of stating this part of the problem has already been made by Morthoron: how do you reconcile a Talking Purse in the Possession of Trolls to your Unified Theory?

2. And a major part of the reason for this is that Tolkien changed his mind about things! Middle-earth only exists or has a definitive form insofar as he gave it one. It's one thing for Tolkien to decide that a certain metaphysic must apply--if anything contradicted it, he was able to change it. But for the rest of us who can only study matter, what are we to do when there are competing traditions? Was Arda flat at one point? What is the nature of the stars that Varda made?

Tolkien had the freedom to reject concepts AND to completely modify texts to fit new theories. We see this especially with his linguistics (since, of course, this was the field he was most interested in), but we also see that he had a profound respect for anything that he'd already published: note how he dropped the whole "problem of -ros." And, of course, he'd forget he decided something now and again without specifically writing out that he'd done so, so you're looking at a dubious metric in using "whatever his latest opinion was."

Basically, you can't have a Unified Theory without first establishing which texts are permissible to admit as evidence, and you can't do that unless you first establish what is canon.

It may be somewhat ancient history now, but we on the Downs have fought many wars over Canonicity before (here is but one major example), and you first need to demonstrate there is a clear, unmistakable canon before you can start deriving anything approaching definitive conclusions.




To be perfectly clear, I *like* the idea of exploring some of the metaphysical or physical ramifications of Arda-as-Revealed, but it always has to be approached with the same sort of attitude as approaching a contrafactual question like "what if Melitot Brandybuck found the One Ring?": you can base it on evidence, make a clear and compelling case, but you cannot PROVE it.

[Marwhini]

While Tolkien's work might be "Art" it does not dismiss the statements made by Tolkien himself (see where I have quoted them above in the thread more times than I can now count) that there are Operational Rules (Sciences) within Middle-earth that are just as robust and rigorous as are our Sciences in this world.

As for how do you reconcile a Talking Pursue?

There are dozens of different ways to reconcile a talking purse.

Formost among them is that The Hobbit is a story that Bilbo crafted to tell other Hobbit Children, and that the event with the Trolls has been Bowdlerized to make it amusing to the Children, and not the terrifying experience it might have been.

There are other Mythological alternatives that can explain a Talking Pursue as well.

As I already pointed out, Having the world based upon Sciences does not preclude what we call "The Supernatural," as the whole attempt is to reconcile that and TO EXPLAIN IT. It means that we need to just look at what would need to be true within Middle-earth for the events, items, people, places, etc. to behave as we see them behave.

The rest of your post is based upon a misconception of what is being attempted, based upon the above point.

Not to mention not understanding that we have an Identical Problem with our own Universe, where conflicting theories and narratives tend to prevent this very thing.

As I said above, that Middle-earth is a fiction works to our advantage, not against us.

MB

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

As for how do you reconcile a Talking Pursue?

There are dozens of different ways to reconcile a talking pursue.

Formost among them is that The Hobbit is a story that Bilbo crafted to tell other Hobbit Children, and that the event with the Trolls has been Bowdlerized to make it amusing to the Children, and not the terrifying experience it might have been.

First, it's purse, p-u-r-s-e, not "pursue".

You could pound a square peg into a round hole and claim "The Hobbit is a story Bilbo crafted to tell other Hobbit Children"; however, there is nothing anywhere in Tolkien's notes to indicate it was Bowdlerized, and you would be back to mere speculation. We know Tolkien didn't care for the naming conventions of the three Trolls (and he names "William" in particular), but then he didn't care for the names of all the Dwarves in the story either (and Gandalf to boot), borrowed as they were from the Völuspá. But he did edit out any number of anachronisms from The Hobbit, yet he chose to keep the talking purse in and never mentioned it again as anachronistic or out of character or too whimsical.

But if, as you speculate, the story was Bowdlerized, and since we know that Bilbo lied about the Ring at one point, doesn't that call into account the veracity of the story as a whole? How many elements were changed to meet the mythical audience you created with your conjecture? Is there a list of things you believe could not occur to fit in your stilted theory? If that's the case, it cannot be considered "canon" in the truest sense, and we must toss aside The Hobbit as unfit for your divine plan.

And how do Trolls have an intrinsically magic item that is beyond their obvious ability to craft? Did they steal it from Ye Old Coach Purse and Majicks Shoppe? It is a unique item, unlike any other described in the Tolkien corpus. Does it work on solar power? D'oh! No, forget that idea. Thorin mentions "magical toys" his forefathers' created that were now out the Dwarves' ken to create. Yes, one is left with conjecture - it could be one of many manifestations (it may even have a soul ). The enigmatic. The unexplainable. The supernatural. These have a place in Tolkien's fantasy. Just like the "express train" that passed through Bywater one evening.

Originally Posted by Marwhini

There are other Mythological alternatives that can explain a Talking Pursue as well.

I have already described in a previous post the talking purse as a folkloric motif, which it is, and Tolkien would have recognized it as such (hence, it's inclusion). But Tolkien always leaves one guessing. He guessed quite often himself, and never came to a specific one-size-fits-all, end-all-be-all, all-in-all-we're-just-another-brick-in-the-wall conclusion about many things. Tom Bombadil, for instance, who he specifically named an "enigma". And since Tolkien is dead, you will never come to a conclusion about some things, which is fine and part of the allure of the tale. Take Trolls, for instance. Tolkien wrote in Letter 153:

I am not sure about Trolls. I think they are mere 'counterfeit', and hence (though here I am of course only using elements of old barbarous mythmaking that had no 'aware' metaphysic) they return to mere stone images when not in the dark. But there are other sorts of Trolls beside these rather ridiculous, if brutal, Stone-trolls, for which other origins are suggested. Of course since my world is highly imperfect even on its own plane nor made wholly coherent...when you make a Troll speak you are giving them a power, which in our world (probably) connotes the possession of a 'soul'. But I do not agree (if you admit that fairy-story element) my Trolls show any sign of 'good', strictly and unsentimentally viewed.

Let's see: "I am not sure", "I think", "using elements of old barbarous mythmaking", "other origins are suggested", "my world is highly imperfect", "[not] wholly coherent", "probably", "if you admit that fairy-story element", etc. That's quite a bit of conjecture by the Professor about his own story. And you have the temerity to say you will continue his work? That, my dear, it what is called fan-fiction, and invariably it suffers when compared to the original.

Originally Posted by Marwhini

As I already pointed out, Having the world based upon Sciences does not preclude what we call "The Supernatural," as the whole attempt is to reconcile that and TO EXPLAIN IT. It means that we need to just look at what would need to be true within Middle-earth for the events, items, people, places, etc. to behave as we see them behave.

What legitimate science accepts the Supernatural or the enigmatic? Oh, I know, when you bend and warp science to make an artificial synthesis of a fiction novel. Rather like Joseph Campbell's tortured attempt to cram every story into his Hero's Journey one-size-fits-all mold. If Tolkien did not explain it while he was alive and writing, how can you then force it into your precepts without making crap up? Educated guesses are guesses with a thesaurus. Again, fan-fiction, no matter how high the temperature it takes to burn cellulose. One could just as easily say Gandalf possessed a Ring of Power, imbued with fire, which he set his pine cones ablaze with, and you wouldn't be wrong...or right, for that matter. Gandalf may also have used gunpowder, as in the cave against the Orcs (which would also explain the "devilry of Saruman" and the explosion at Helm's Deep).

Originally Posted by Marwhini

The rest of your post is based upon a misconception of what is being attempted, based upon the above point.

Not to mention not understanding that we have an Identical Problem with our own Universe, where conflicting theories and narratives tend to prevent this very thing.

Don't worry, Formy, he's insulted 5 or 6 different people on this forum in like manner already, reminding us of our ignorance. Whatever.

[Marwhini]

That would be an exact example of what I am talking about being "Not even Wrong."

It would be one thing if you could communicate a correct description of what I have been attempting to resolve within Tolkien's work, and then criticized it.

But I have yet to see even an attempt to understand the goal, or what it entails, much less any criticism that actually applies to what I am (or, rather, "We") are attempting to do.

You are addressing things that have nothing to do with the actual goal, or endeavor.

Nearly every reply has been of the nature: "Horse" when the question is:

"What is the Solution to dx/dt = x + 1 ?"

If you cannot even effectively communicate what the problem set is describing, how do you hope to even recognize an answer, much less formulate one that isn't simply an accident?

As to "insulting people..."

I have done no such thing.

If someone is attempting to understand the goals that we have in this project, and communicating what they THINK is being done, then they are never going to reach an understanding of what is being attempted if their misconceptions are not pointed out.

That would be like trying to learn history, or math without ever having any of your knowledge corrected when you have a wrong answer.

And I might be horrifically socially clumsy in that regard.

But that in no way changes the fact that someone who has failed to understand the goal and process here has failed to understand the goal and process.

They might take offense at having this pointed out. But that would be rather like being offended when told that 1+1 ≠ 7. Especially if one intended to discover the correct answer to the problem of 1 + 1 .



MB

[Nerwen]

Marhwini, I find it encouraging to see that you've laid off Capitalising Things.

Now look, you speak constantly of SCIENCE! and allude frequently to having an academic background of some kind, yet, as I've said earlier, it seems to me that you have a deep emotional attachment to your project such that you are unable to evaluate it, or even discuss it, in a manner which remotely approaches being "scientific". For you, there can be no discussion: your ideas must be right, and so you assume anyone who disagrees is simply ignorant and unable to understand what you're saying, and therefore in need of "correction". It seems to me, further, that you are reading at most a few lines of others' posting, before responding with your walls of text + wiki links + equations, whereas a closer examination might reveal to you that we understand perfectly well what you're getting at. We just think you're wrong. Your inability to accept this is what's causing you to come across to many as arrogant and insulting, even though I'm sure that's not your intention.

One thing I am curious about, though- and forgive me if this is something you've explained already- what do you ultimately intend to do with your project? Do you intend to publish it in book form? As an article? Or what?

[Marwhini]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Marhwini, I find it encouraging to see that you've laid off Capitalising Things.

Now look, you speak constantly of SCIENCE! and allude frequently to having an academic background of some kind, yet, as I've said earlier, it seems to me that you have a deep emotional attachment to your project such that you are unable to evaluate it, or even discuss it, in a manner which remotely approaches being "scientific". For you, there can be no discussion: your ideas must be right, and so you assume anyone who disagrees is simply ignorant and unable to understand what you're saying, and therefore in need of "correction". It seems to me, further, that you are reading at most a few lines of others' posting, before responding with your walls of text + wiki links + equations, whereas a closer examination might reveal to you that we understand perfectly well what you're getting at. We just think you're wrong. Your inability to accept this is what's causing you to come across to many as arrogant and insulting, even though I'm sure that's not your intention.

One thing I am curious about, though- and forgive me if this is something you've explained already- what do you ultimately intend to do with your project? Do you intend to publish it in book form? As an article? Or what?

OK.... If you think this "idea" so insane....

In one sentence describe to me what the idea is.

I can.


Or, if you cannot do it in one sentence.... How about just ANY description of what I am talking about that actually IS what I am talking about, and not something that you THINK I am talking about.

Because if you cannot even accurately describe the goal, how is it that you can know what is right/wrong with it?


MB

[Marwhini]

As for what we intend to do with it.

I think I have mentioned that only a couple of dozen times.

But so that it isn't lost:

We are working on building an Operating Virtual World of Middle-earth.

And, before you run with that, NO It isn't that kind of "Virtual World."

The correct term (for the project in its current state) would be a "Toy World," which is used in Systems Theory to describe simplified Models of Feedback Systems.

So, for example:

An Ant Pile.

To make a Virtual Model of an Ant Pile, you don't start off making a lot of Computerized Graphics of Ants that people then put on some huge, clumsy VR Visor (Like an Oculus Rift visor).

It starts off as a purely Computational Model where the input and output are purely mathematical models and raw data. You have "Ants" that are described by a simple data-set (size, role, location, age, gender, etc), and you have an environment that is also described by a data set (tunnels, openings, fungus farms, location of the queen, eggs, location of distant food sources, predators, etc.).

<<edit>> And you have a system of relationships between each connected element of the system that describes that relationship. For example:

•*The amount of food eaten by each ant, and where it comes from.
•*The effect of the immediate environment by the ant's presence.
• The effect of the environment upon predators, or the effect of the presence of predators upon the ants.
•*Etc.

<</edit>>

For Middle-earth, we would start with something similar. We already have the physical environment up to the end of the Second Age as generalized Data Models, and a topology for a "Flat-World" that produces a constant 1g, downward, orthogonal to the entire surface of the "Earth" (It is a pretty freaking strange shape, and depending upon other possible models, we have different topologies, depending upon whether Fëa has mass or not).

Eventually this raw data will be fed to some form of a visualization system that begins to produce things that people would actually recognize as Middle-earth.

And, as computational power increases, and the Systems Modeling Tools grow in power, we can then connect them to better visual processing systems (and hopefully, by that time (roughly 2025 - 2030) to actual experiential Interface Systems that would allow people to have a nearly immersive experience within Middle-earth (i.e. to be able to "feel" like they were actually inside Middle-earth).

The latter is going to sound kind of Matrix-y, but it isn't considered far-fetched for the time-frame we have. People like Larry Page, Ray Kurzweil (both at Google - One the founder, the other the Chief of Engineering) has both said that the time-frame we are looking at is appropriate for both the modeling and the perceptual interfaces to the model.

So.... That is what we plan to do with it.

Considering we (People working in Systems Modeling and Systems Theory) can get other non-deterministic Systems Models to behave in a Fatalistic Fashion (arrive at a pre-determined outcome, even with stochastic/random behavior of all the elements in the System), then it should not be difficult to arrange for a Model World of Middle-earth to be Instantiated such that it unfolds as described by Tolkien (at least for those parts described).

That is what we plan to do with this once we get a working System and Foundation for the Metaphysical Functioning and/or Operation of Middle-earth.

MB

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

OK.... If you think this "idea" so insane....

In one sentence describe to me what the idea is.

I can.


Or, if you cannot do it in one sentence.... How about just ANY description of what I am talking about that actually IS what I am talking about, and not something that you THINK I am talking about.

Because if you cannot even accurately describe the goal, how is it that you can know what is right/wrong with it?


MB

Uh-huh. So it is what I thought. You are trying to create a working model of Middle-earth, with modified physics to account for the spiritual element.

Like many people, I was under the impression that this was simply to be "on paper", but now it seems that it involves computer simulation and *possibly* the ultimate creation of a Matrix-like virtual Middle-earth. Very well. The fault lies not with us but with you for your failure to make this remotely clear (whilst constantly berating us for our supposed stupidity in not "getting it").

While making the project far more grandiose than I had realised, it still doesn't change the fact that it is, as I said originally, just a form of fan-fiction. You may produce something that will satisfy you as a "canonical" model of Middle-earth, but be rejected by countless other fans as being as much a travesty to them as Jackson's films are to you. Are you prepared for that? I have seen you make many a sweeping pronouncement on what is or isn't "Canon", as though you consider yourself some final authority, but it is not so. There are too many contradictions, too many blank spaces to fill in.

I have said "you may produce something..." There's the rub. Who in your group has the ability to do all this? I mean, yes, you claim expert knowledge in a vast number of fields- so vast that I have to tell you that you are frankly starting to come across as more of a fantasist than anything else. But okay, I'll assume you're qualified in one or more areas relevant to the project, and that there are people in your group with expertise in complementary areas. Well. Do you *listen* to them? Do you treat them with respect? How did you recruit them in the first place? Doesn't that mean you were at some point willing to entertain the idea that someone, somewhere, might know more than you about something? Because from what I've seen of you so far, Marhwini, that's really quite hard to believe.

EDIT: By the way, I did not at any point describe your idea as "insane". I said you had too much emotional investment in it.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Marwhini

That would be an exact example of what I am talking about being "Not even Wrong."

It would be one thing if you could communicate a correct description of what I have been attempting to resolve within Tolkien's work, and then criticized it.

But I have yet to see even an attempt to understand the goal, or what it entails, much less any criticism that actually applies to what I am (or, rather, "We") are attempting to do.

Again, you mistake misunderstanding with rejection. I reject your attempt at making a little video game and claiming it encompasses what a dead author might be thinking on any given subject. It is indeed fan-fiction, enlightened and scientific enough so as not to contain Mary-Sues on little pink ponies, but fan-fiction nonetheless, no matter how you try to conflate it to epic proportions with algorithms and pronouncements. Let's upgrade your attempt to "speculative fiction", give it a nod and a pat on the back for effort, and move on.

Originally Posted by Marwhini

...But that in no way changes the fact that someone who has failed to understand the goal and process here has failed to understand the goal and process.

They might take offense at having this pointed out. But that would be rather like being offended when told that 1+1 ≠ 7. Especially if one intended to discover the correct answer to the problem of 1 + 1 .

Perhaps our failure to communicate entails my concern and fascination dealing with the philology, literary devices, the motifs, the synthesis of world mythos that Tolkien instilled in his work, and the glamour of Middle-earth, with it's the facade of magic and the eucatastrophic ending that requires a suspension of disbelief, because there are some things in Middle-earth that are simply inexplicable by scientific methods; Tolkien himself expressed the need of enigma in fantasy. Tolkien was quite curt with a correspondent, Peter Hastings, who pushed Tolkien in a letter to further explain Bombadil's status, to which Tolkien stated, "As for Tom Bombadil, I really do think you are being far too serious," and further emphasized the point with a blunt, "I don't think Tom needs philosophizing about, and is not improved by it." I would suggest you are not improving it in the same monomaniacal manner.

It seems to me that you subscribe to what Gandalf said of Saruman, “He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.”

Originally Posted by Marwhini

Science is JUST "Fan-Fiction" in that case, because it contains the same problems that exist in Tolkien's world:

We have gaps in history....

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.

No, science is not fan-fiction, because one can continually update one's hypotheses to match newly discovered data. Science is not static and is not based on presupposition in so far as ignoring some data to push other data into a given mold.

In the case of Tolkien's Middle-earth, you are attempting to arbitrarily decide how his world operates based on incomplete data, and not only that, pick and choose what you consider "canon".

Which brings me back to the infamous 'talking purse', which you so blithely brushed off when you decided it was merely a story-telling contrivance by Bilbo so as to not upset children listeners, and again ignored the mention to merely state I misunderstood your objectives. There is nothing anywhere in Tolkien's mountains of missives and writings that states that a talking purse does not exist in Middle-earth, any more so than one can explain away anthropomorphic animals, or several species of birds, canines and dragons with intelligible speech (or the aptitude for a lower life form to make such speech), a talking sword (courtesy of the Kalevala), spells, curses and counter-curses, songs of power, lands held in a natural vacuum of verdancy by wielding a Ring of Power, undead beings existing for thousands of years at the whim of a Ring, malevolent, predatory willows, or blades that turn blue when only a very specific species of creature comes in contact with the wielder (without, of course, insisting on some specialized infra-red computational technology that could not exist in a fantasy of that age).

You can pontificate, you can approximate, you can estimate, but you still will not offer a Truth in your little video game commensurate with reality. You only eliminate Wonder and Imagination in the process, breaking down Fantasy into mathematical scribbles .

[Nerwen]

Me again.

So, Marhwini, you concede that we did actually understand what you were talking about?

Although it seems you have a further goal, previously unmentioned, which is to persuade Tolkien Estate to "canonize" your model. Okay... I'd advise you not to hold your breath.

As for the rest: yes, yes, we are all aware that science but imperfectly describes reality. The difference is that there is still an underlying reality for it to describe. It is possible for a scientific theory to actually correspond to that reality, even if we are never able to prove it; it is not possible in the case of a similar theory about Middle-earth (in the absence of authorial confirmation). So no, science is not fan-fiction. Fan-fiction is fan-fiction.

And with all this- no, I am not saying that your project is doomed*, worthless or "insane". Not at all. I am saying that you should consider approaching it differently.

Another thing to consider is your assumption that disagreement with you is, ipso facto, a sign of abject ignorance, requiring a condescending lecture (preferably In Capitals). Perhaps people other yourself have taken the occasional stroll through a college campus? Something to bear in mind, that's all.





*unless you're really counting on the aforesaid acceptance by Tolkien Estate. In which case, yeah, I'd say it's pretty much doomed. Sorry.

[Marwhini]

Also...

SCIENCE DOES NOT 'PROVE' THINGS!

There is no 'Proving' in the Sciences.

Proof is for Mathematics and Formal Logic.

Not that this makes any difference.

In my post above I illustrated, complete with the math required, how we can derive very specific facts about things within Middle-earth.

MB