5
$\begingroup$

The Sandbox works best if you sort posts by "active" (click here to do so).

Welcome to the Sandbox!

This "Sandbox" is a place where Worldbuilding.SE users can get feedback on prospective questions they wish to post. This is useful, because new and experienced users can have trouble writing a clear and fully specified question.

  • There is a much better chance of your question being well received if you post it in the Sandbox first.

If you're here to help mentor Sandbox questions (THANK YOU!), jump to the "Helping in the Sandbox" section. If this sandbox has grown too full, jump to the "Maintenance" section.

  • Please don't vote on any of the proposed questions in the Sandbox. Votes don't mean anything here and you could inadvertently bias others who might help, or worse, make a new person feel like their question writing skills are hopeless. Or worse yet, much better than they are. If you think a question is good, leave a note of encouragement and a helpful tip. If you think a question is bad, leave a note of encouragement and offer your help to make it better!

Posting to the Sandbox

Please take the time to read through the Help Center > Asking pages. We know it's a lot to read, but those pages contain the rules our mentors are using to judge your proposed question. If you have not taken the time to read through them, we ask that you do. It would also be beneficial to read through our Meta posts about high concept questions, open-ended questions, and what "primarily opinion-based" means on a creative site like Worldbuilding.SE.

To post a question to the Sandbox: Post an answer to this post with the content of your proposed question. You can create as many answers as you have proposed questions, but it is recommended that you only work on one question at a time. The content of the post should be as close as possible to the format you would use when asking on the main site. If you would like, you may add a section at the bottom explaining what parts of the proposed question you are most worried about (See the Sandbox FAQ for more information on suggested syntax).

Once you have posted your proposed question, users will be able to comment on it with feedback. You can then respond to their feedback with comments of your own, or make edits to your post to attempt to address their feedback (after editing, be sure to notify the user via a comment of your own, use @username in your comment to make this happen). The feedback/edit cycle can go on for as long as needed until either you are confident that your question is ready to be asked on the main site, or you've decided the question just won't work.

  • Please be patient. While most sandbox reviews can be completed in a couple of days, some questions may require a week or more for review.

Finally, please ignore votes. We've asked mentors to not vote for Sandbox questions because questions change here too frequently. Nevertheless, those index fingers hovering over left mouse buttons are trained to vote, so votes occasionally appear. Please completely ignore votes that happen to appear for your proposed question.

When your question is ready

  1. Post it to the main site.
  2. Add a link to your main-site post to the bottom of the "Graduated Questions" list. The list is the accepted answer to this post.
  3. Edit your Sandbox post so that it only contains the title and a link to the main-site post. Delete everything else.
  4. Delete all of your comments.
  5. Finally, delete your Sandbox post. Users with enough rep can still see the post, but it will be moved automatically to the bottom of the answer list, making this Sandbox easier to use.

If you abandon your question

Occasionally a Sandbox question is abandoned. While crafting the question, you may discover the answer. Or you may realize that the question's basic premise can't be expressed within the rules of Worldbuilding.SE. You may also simply forget that you have a question in the Sandbox. If you decide to abandon the question:

  1. Edit your Sandbox post so that it only contains the title and a notice (e.g., "Abandoned question."). Delete everything else.
  2. Delete all of your comments.
  3. Finally, delete your Sandbox post. Users with enough rep can still see the post, but it will be moved automatically to the bottom of the answer list, making this Sandbox easier to use.

Please be aware that questions without activity (edits to your question or comments left by you) for more than one month may be judged abandoned and removed. We'll leave a comment or two to get your attention, but eventually, forgotten questions will be cleaned up and deleted.

Helping in the Sandbox

We are sincerely grateful for the many users who help mentor questions and new users here in the Sandbox. Sharing your experience adds considerably to the quality and enjoyment of the site. We invite you to help us by adhering to the following policies.

Keep the Sandbox clean. In order to keep the Sandbox clean users are encouraged to look out for questions that have not seen any activity in some time.

  1. If you notice the OP has not edited his/her proposed question or left a comment in 2 or more weeks, please tap the OP on the shoulder with a comment (e.g., "Are you still working on this question? This draft might be deleted if there is no further activity.")
  2. If you notice the OP has not edited his/her proposed question or left a comment in more than a month, please flag the question for moderator attention (e.g., "This Sandbox question has been inactive for a month."). Please do not take it upon yourself to delete the OP's question.

Delete your comments when they no longer apply. Please make it easy for others to see which comments are still relevant to the discussion by removing your obsolete comments. In addition you can ask a mod to purge comments under graduated posts or move them to chat under abandoned posts to make it easier for users that can see deleted posts to use the Sandbox.

Please do not vote on proposed questions. Questions in the Sandbox frequently change (it's why they're here) — and the moment they change your vote may no longer reflect your beliefs. It's unreasonable to expect mentors to constantly watch Sandbox questions and there is no automatic way (indeed, there's no way at all…) to notify voters when a question is edited. It is better to use comments. If you feel the question should be downvoted, explain the problem in a comment. If you feel the question is ready for the main site, say so in a comment. The dates on the comments allow other people to judge the relevance of your statements.

Please do not answer questions here. We know it's tempting, but answering the question in a comment will clog the comments and may not even be relevant to the final form of the question. If you have an answer for the proposed question, simply wait for it to be posted to the main site, and answer it there.

Please do not edit a proposed question unless you have the OP's permission to do so. The purpose of the Sandbox is two-fold: (a) to perfect a question and (b) to help users learn to craft good questions. If you jump in and fix a question you've subverted (b). Whenever possible, let the OP edit their proposed question. Exception: If a question has been deleted but not properly cleaned up, help us out by editing the question to remove everything but the title. Thanks!

See the Sandbox FAQ for more information on how to use the Sandbox.

Maintenance

This section is referred to when a new sandbox is created. In order to make the Sandbox easier to use, a new Sandbox question will be posted when the old one becomes too full (between 75 and 100 sandbox questions).

Whomever creates the new page: be sure you want to be actively involved with the Sandbox, because until it gets replaced in the future, you'll be notified of every proposed question and every comment.

(A) Update this previous sandbox list:

The previous sandbox post should be locked as obsolete by a moderator and renamed to "Inactive Sandbox [Date]." Please add a link to the top of the old sandbox page to the new Sandbox.

If there are active questions in the old Sandbox, leave a comment for the users indicating that the old sandbox is closing and they either need to wrap up (preferred) or re-post the question in the new Sandbox.

(B) Update these links after the new Sandbox is created:

(C) Create the "Graduated Question List" answer and mark it a "Community Wiki."

$\endgroup$
11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I have locked the previous sandboxes as "obsolete". This should avoid confusion with the duplicate, since they hardly have the same content. For future reference, just flag the to-be-closed sandbox for mod attention requesting it to be obsoleted. $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch Mod
    Dec 11, 2022 at 18:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Reminder to readers : Please do not vote on proposed questions. At least 2 persons/accounts skipped the sandbox's rules recently. For everyone's sake please read them and apply them carefully. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Dec 30, 2022 at 22:51
  • $\begingroup$ Maintenance question: is it appropriate to up/downvote a proposed question to get it to zero? $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Mar 2 at 6:28
  • $\begingroup$ @elemtilas I do. People aren't supposed to be voting and bias of any kind isn't the point here, but it's hard to break a habit. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Mar 5 at 1:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @elemtilas :-) Your edit is the third time "please don't vote" is mentioned in the post. I'm OK with it... but I doubt anything will change. Based on how users use the Sandbox, very few of them read the instructions. C'est la vie. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Mar 6 at 19:38
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH --- I didn't see the third one! (oops!) I figured that if the message were closer to the top, it might get seen and processed early on. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Mar 7 at 3:22
  • $\begingroup$ Question : What should be done when no one comments under your post? Should the question follow the sandbox procedure (->adding it to the question list, etc.), or should it be discarded silently and posted on main, without any link to the sandbox? $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Jun 1 at 7:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Tortliena You've discovered the weakness in the system. The Sandbox only works when a bunch of people are regularly participating. That was once true - but today few have the time to participate. I'd hate to suggest that the Sandbox's time has come and gone, but were I a querent with an unaddressed question in the Sandbox after 30 or 60 days, I'd post it on Main - and if anybody complained on Main, I'd post a link back to the Sandbox with the question, "where've you been?" $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 1 at 7:25
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH I'll follow your advice ^^. This also implies I can't get my own questions reviewed, since it looks like I'm kinda the last one here 🦋. I can almost hear the tumbleweeds rolling, western movie style 😅. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Jun 1 at 13:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Tortliena It seriously hurt the value of the Sandbox when our Stack Exchange Overlords decided to discontinue the community ads. That was how we kept people reminded to stop in. Those ads were very effective. I assume SE wanted the space for monetization purposes, but that's only a pessimistic guess. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 1 at 15:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I concur: if a query has sat here uncommented on, the OP is well within rights to post it on main, and if anyone there complains, put it back on them that they didn't help when help was sought. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Jun 1 at 17:39

14 Answers 14

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

Graduated Questions List

In accordance with Sandbox policy, answers containing graduated questions will be deleted. This answer is designed to be a repository for all those questions that have graduated. It is a community wiki answer, so add in your question here, at the end of the list, once it is posted on the main site! Position #1 is an example of how to do this to get the ball rolling.

  1. Sandbox for proposed Questions
  2. How large of a magma chamber do I need to geothermally power a small city?
  3. How can muscle atrophy due to long gestation in artificial wombs be avoided?
  4. Knocking Out Zombies
  5. How to map arms of the galaxy?
  6. How would I go about establishing phenotype in the case of co-dominance where mixed phenotype is not an option?
  7. How can I determine gene expression in cases of multiple co-dominant genes?
  8. Surviving Organ Failure
  9. How to Optimize CO2 and H2 Intake for a Sessile Methane-Producing Organism
  10. Solutions for an Aquatic Race to Harvest the Sugar Under Sea Grass Meadows (edited for reopening)
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

What's the next species to be domesticated by humans

So, in my world-building project, 700 years in the future, humanity has advanced to the point of having a small interstellar empire. This is all just back story, I just want help writing this question:

What's the next species to be likely domesticated by humans?

  • Foxes and Hedgehogs, domesticated in the 1950s and 1980s respectively, have at this point become common pets on earth, foxes being even popular alternatives to dogs in interstellar colonization do too (REASON UNDETERMINED)
  • Personal candidates: Capybaras, reindeer (only partly domesticated), Corvids, Leopord Gekos, Bearded dragons, and most common Exotic pets
  • I really have no idea on how to ask this question or even where in the wider Stack Exchange network this would really fit into
$\endgroup$
10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (a) By definition, the next one will be the Russian Red Fox, which is well enough along that it could claim official domestication within the next 20-30 years. In other words, what research have you done to determine ongoing domestication efforts? (b) Otherwise, this is a (VTC) story-based question. The next domesticated animal is the one your story needs to forward its plot. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Feb 6 at 5:43
  • $\begingroup$ Is this sandbox post still active? $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Mar 1 at 17:13
  • $\begingroup$ I have no idea. $\endgroup$
    – redfrogcrab
    Mar 1 at 17:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm disappointed that no one has stepped in to give you more insight. I'd like to go put a "we need help in the sandbox!" post on Meta. Do you want to wait for that and see if we can get more comments? $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Mar 1 at 17:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JBH yeah, that'll work $\endgroup$
    – redfrogcrab
    Mar 1 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ I would consider the reasons, as near as we can figure thousands of years later, why certain animals were domesticated in the first place. Sheep = wool and meat; goats = independent, meat & milk; dogs = partnership; foxes = because we can. And then move that rationale forward: consider your space faring tech level and infrastructure; what are the needs of colonial systems if any; what other sophonts have they met; what niches actually need to be filled; which animals are most likely to even be domesticable. When you get some of the background information sorted, then it just becomes (cont) $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Mar 2 at 5:56
  • $\begingroup$ (cont) a matter of formatting your question. Generally the Four Point Question format (Background, Pertinent Information, Restatement of Question, Criteria & Considerations for the Respondent) works best. You've already got B, your opening paragraph and first bullet point. PI will be some of the things I asked you to consider. R will an amplification of your marquee / title question. C&C will be where you tell us respondents what you're actually looking for. If you like capybaras and reindeer, this is where you'll tell us. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Mar 2 at 6:00
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH --- Foxes are soooo cuwute! $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Mar 2 at 6:00
  • $\begingroup$ Is this Sandbox question still active? $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 25 at 19:53
  • $\begingroup$ Since this is the sandbox, go ahead and tell the backstory, because it's really impossible to predict the next domesticated species in general, and absolutely impossible if we don't know the state of humanity of the earth. Depending on your story, some species may have gone extinct, some may have vanished from desertification, or ocean rise, or some hay have become valuable for medicinal or environmental reasons. A world can't be built without a story. In your story, what is broken that you need a new pet 700 years into the future? $\endgroup$
    – Vogon Poet
    Aug 22 at 5:26
0
$\begingroup$

How does one go about creating the biology and character of a non-physical life-form?

One of my protagonists is a scientist of unspecified fields of study, who managed to open a gate to what he terms "The Void". How he managed this is irrelevant. Most of the story thus far has taken place in the various "universes" of a multiverse. Upcoming parts of the story, however, directly involve "The Void" and is integral to the larger plot and themes of the story.

"The Void" in this story is misleadingly named. It is not an incomprehensibly vast or eternal space, but it is the nonexistence of space and time. For lack of better terms, I'll refer to it as a place, despite there not being any physical space to it. The void is described in the story as being Nothing and Everything. It is absent of any and all physical matter, forces, and fields. However it is differentiated from the concept of true Nothingness and nonbeing as it is a metaphysical plane where abstractions, non-physical systems, and even concepts exist and interact. "The Void" is that from which the "Universes" spring, a kind of pure potentiality.

Though physical things can't really be in this place, as there's not physical space, they can enter the void as a consciousness. However unlike with a physical body there are no physical laws and biological functions that can create or regulate that consciousness. They can maintain their mental processes such as reasoning, emotion, learning, sensation (now only to non-physical forces), imagining, and memory. However their ability to maintain this consciousness and all the different processes and functions relies entirely upon the strength of their sense of self and their unwavering belief in their own existence.

Nouns, verbs, and other language can be lost as their memory disintegrates and they lose their own name and the proper names required for functional communication, and they become unable to create or recall concepts and ideas. Emotions are tied to concepts and ideas as well as perceptions, since they cannot form or remember constructs their ability perceive things breaks down since this information can no longer be used, and emotions break down as they can no longer uphold an internal structure of the self. Without the sense of self, the consciousness begins break down and the rest of their functions crumble as well. Once their belief in their own existence fails, or rather their ability to believe, they cease to exist all-together.

A somewhat brief explanation is given later, by a character who in theory knows a lot about reality but who is somewhat suspect in his accuracy, on the creation of Universes in the Void. Since the nature of the Void is that it is potentiality, it is malleable to a certain extent. Ideas, concepts, and abstractions can coalesce into frameworks that are strong enough to move from potential to actual. In layman's terms, the sheer amount of power in their belief of their own existence and sense of self actively allows them to transform into a physical universe.

This nature of ideas and thought being part of how this world operates is seen in other ways as well. One can't travel through the void in the physical way. There is no distance between one universe and another. To move between them, one has to either use the strength of their imagination to force a method of movement onto a non-physical plane (like convincing yourself that you're in a car driving seven miles along a road and the arrival at your destination, or in a ship flying through space, or in a boat on a river, or walking on a path), or they must bring themselves metaphysically close to another universe by traveling through ideas and forms (if you think about the universe you're going to in a way that describes its exact parameters and nature, such as knowing the universe's name, you'll find yourself already there).

The actual writing of this has been largely experimental, full of non-linear sequences and things like the total blacking out of nouns as the character begins to fall apart. But as a part of the narrative I need to introduce the notion of things actually living in the Void.

Of course, any non-physical life-forms can be comprised of any material being that becomes lost or stuck there as a consciousness but is mentally stable and strong enough to maintain itself. However what I want is beings who not only live in the Void, but are its natural inhabitants. Beings of pure thought or abstraction, or living ideas, or living systems.

While I'm not limited in anthropomorphized options such as a personified Death, I want to explore a more alien aspect. Religion is full of Spiritual beings. Angels, deities, personifications, faeries, and much more. But since the character observing these beings is a scientist who has spent a lot of time resisting these terms, I don't want to use those kinds of terms or descriptions.

I had the idea to take some characteristics outlined in Biology as descriptive definitions for what constitutes life. These are:

  1. Homeostasis: the regulation of an internal environment to maintain a constant state.
  2. Organization: The structures and systems of multiple parts to make a complex but ordered whole.
  3. Metabolism: the transformation of energy into a form that can be used to maintain internal functions.
  4. Growth: The increased complexity and parts of the system, fueled by a metabolism that has a higher rate of energy intake than waste disposal.
  5. Adaptation: the process where the organism becomes better suited to live in its environment.
  6. Response to Stimuli: In this case, all stimuli must be non-physical in nature.
  7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms either asexually or sexually.

Though an actual consensus on the definition of life doesn't exist, life as we understand it has been known to exhibit all or most of these characteristics.

This method was met with some measures of success. One can apply 1,2,4, and 7 to a system, such as a complex mathematical formula. If I'm willing to stretch those definitions creatively I can also attribute forms of 3 and 6 to a mathematical formula as well. And it's specifically stated that I don't need all of the requirements to count something as being alive, just most of them.

But while this method does give me a way to justify the existence of non-physical life forms (at least enough for the story), it hasn't really provided a very helpful method in making beings I can actually have my protagonist interact with in their own "environment". Since the Void is an immaterial reality, the mind of a physical being might be able to translate its metaphysical perceptions into forms that the mind would be able to comprehend. That would result in a chaotic dream-like place bereft of sequential time and normal spaces. Which, while I feel might be a step in the right direction in portraying the Void itself during certain scenes, hasn't been enough to help me push forward on the problem of the inhabitants.

Primarily this feels like a problem of how to take this concept of immaterial life forms and write them in a way that the characters can at least interact with them while moving through the narrative. The closest I've managed to get to success thus far is the main character being assaulted by a number of "whispering voices" who nearly managed to convince him that he didn't exist, like some kind of siren power, but fled the mental contact when he reaffirmed his existence and identity through sheer force of will.

What are some options for how to turn this concept into a series of functioning and interactive, if still non-physical, characters?

Sandbox Questions

  1. How can I improve/adapt this question? Have I provided enough information? Is that information comprehensible?
  2. Formatting the question itself gave me issues as I don't know the exact source of my problem and thus had trouble narrowing the focus down to a more practical question. How might I improve the question so that it's less nebulous and more easily answerable? Or alternatively, how might I break this topic down into separate and better questions?
  3. What tags would this even fit into? Philosophy? Writing? Xenobiology? I'm not sure that it fits exactly into any of these, though they are connected.
$\endgroup$
13
  • $\begingroup$ You do realize that if time does not exist in The Void then stories cannot exist in the The Void? And that whatever objects you imagine there cannot interact, because interaction is a sequence of events, and without time there are no sequences of events? $\endgroup$
    – AlexP
    Mar 16 at 7:47
  • $\begingroup$ This is quite the unusual question and universe; Reminds me of both lucid dreaming and The Elder Scrolls's CHIM superpower state. Let's take down each of your questions now. The easiest first, question 3 : You should be able to use any of the following tags with ease alien, life, philosophy, dimensions. I suggest to at least have one of the first two, since it's your main topic. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Mar 16 at 9:12
  • $\begingroup$ Now for the really important stuff (you can mess up tags, few really care :) ), question 1 and question 2. Let's begin with understandability and organization, which is the second easiest thing : You can divide your question in more sections. For instance : "What is the void-verse?", "interacting with the void (ie. creating universes, self-existence and word crumble)?", and most importantly "what is the problem I have when making my void lifeforms?". Use the proper format for that 📝 (pile up "#" before your section title. More "#" is for subsections. Or add "="/"-" under the title). $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Mar 16 at 9:30
  • $\begingroup$ ""The Void" in this story is misleadingly named. It is not an incomprehensibly vast or eternal space, but it is the nonexistence of space and time." As cool-looking this sentence is, this will lead to a bunch of confusions + apparent contradictions as AlexP showed. There's time preventing... Well anything from happening, but there's also the very alien concept of having no space to hold anything yet containing lifeforms and Void travellers's consciousness.[...] $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Mar 16 at 9:44
  • $\begingroup$ [...] Perhaps -and only if this matches your actual definition of the Void- this could be better described as an universe existing by the concepts brought into it : Nothing exists until it is brought into it, wherein it is crunched bits by bits and stop existing altogether. At least this solves the non-existence of time and space containing nothing. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Mar 16 at 9:44
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding the core question you are asking, now. This is where it gets tricky. Do you have specific goals with your Void life in mind? In other words, what kind of interaction do you want? Are they a recurring threat to your Void travellers (ie. the siren power), a mystery said travellers are trying to research on, their new home pets, something else? I'm asking because I'm not quite sure where do you wish to go with them, and alas a direction is needed on Worldbuilding stack-exchange : questions where you cannot scale answers one to another are closed for being "opinion-based" :/ . $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Mar 16 at 9:56
  • $\begingroup$ Finally, and perhaps it's the most important hint : Make sure you don't design one specific species and defining life as a whole at the same time. This can make things very hard for you to build upon. The bottom-up approach (->seeking interactions kinds) is probably the easiest here as it'll be closer to what your Void traveller will actually experience, or more accurately "experiment" : They will see weird stuff, then make (cor)relations with what they know and finally describe and categorize the lifeform as a whole. With such things you rarely have the whole picture from the start. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Mar 16 at 10:12
  • $\begingroup$ You probably could drop the entire biology bit, as the Void is a thoughtspace(think World of Dreams from the Wheel of Time). I have a similar concept of my own, and creatures from the Void are only constructs of thought-physical spaces that exist there are the consequence of someone from a material universe intervening. $\endgroup$
    – The Commander
    Mar 25 at 19:00
  • $\begingroup$ Is this Sandbox question still active? $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 25 at 19:53
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH Sorry, I thought this was on my question I had put in the sandbox, I didn’t realize it was someone else’s. I assumed that it was my question since I was getting notifications for it in my inbox. Sorry about the confusion. And to answer your question, no, I don’t know Liminal River, and I don’t understand how him having a low rep score = odds are pretty good of me knowing them. Is that meant as an insult? $\endgroup$
    – Kal Madda
    Jun 28 at 2:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @KalMadda No, it wasn't meant as an insult. We sometimes have people operating multiple accounts on SE and it's odd that someone would pop in, ask one question in the Sandbox, and then disappear. So for all I knew Liminal was a neighbor or friend of yours who hopped on after hearing how cool it is here from you. I just didn't understand the context. Thanks for clearing it up. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 28 at 5:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JBH Ok, thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. Sorry for the confusion. 👍🏻 $\endgroup$
    – Kal Madda
    Jun 29 at 12:15
  • $\begingroup$ If you try to find an old TV program called Deep Space Nine, the first episode had a species which lived outside of time. They formed a wormhole which became a valuable trade route. The beings were fairly well done I thought. $\endgroup$
    – Vogon Poet
    Aug 23 at 3:47
0
$\begingroup$

I know I have another question being refined here. I'm not abandoning it.

Anyway, How would the coastlines of a chemical sea on a planet with extreme winds form? has the premise of a good question. Details are provided, but it's almost impossible to read and understand what the questioner actually wanted, so I'm gonna take a crack at making it more readable.

How would these weather conditions affect the structure of a chemical sea's coastlines?

On a particularly windy Earth-like planet, there is a sea with the following traits:

  • Size roughly equal to that of the Caspian Sea
  • Composition similar to Lake Natron, caused by the extreme density of chemicals in the soil, with some contribution from vents.

The main weather patterns on that planet are as follows:

  • A permanent cyclone in the planet's polar region, wind traveling south over the sea
  • A secondary permanent cyclone encircles the inside of the basin in a counter-clockwise direction, creating the local wind currents.

The lake itself has sediment beaches, and the beaches are encircled by rocky cliffs.

Given these conditions, how would the coastlines of this lake change over time? How would the cliffs shift on the lee and windward sides?

I assume deep gouges would first form in the windward cliffs, eventually disintegrating into nothing the closer they get to the shore, with huge drifts of chemical-salt formations, but I am uncertain how the lee side (the shore closest to the wind source) would be affected. I have thus far written it as an even slope with relatively mild geography in the shadow of the cliff. However, I also assume that on all sides there are counter-clockwise "scoops" of stone and arches, either of more chemical formations or cliff stone, with larger drifts of sediment on the Eastern shore, caused by sand pounding the more stable cliff-rock.

Tags remain the same, but ìnternal-consistency or science-based could be added. Not sure which, both have merit in the situation.

I also think that the way I structured the information at the start is a little clunky, feel free to edit.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Please only focus on revising one question at a time. We're volunteering out time to provide feedback, and help you learn how to ask good questions. Work with us to get one question to a good state at a time. $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    Apr 4 at 4:31
  • $\begingroup$ Is this Sandbox question still active? $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 25 at 20:00
0
$\begingroup$

This question may be part of the anatomically correct series, although as a new user I'm not sure.

In a Earth-like setting, what differences from real slime molds would this organism have? The defining characteristics of this organism are:

  1. living underground (a few centimeters or more)
  2. covering a vast area like Pando does (either alone, or more plausibly in a vast colony)
  3. having its spores spread aboveground (bigger and taller than real sime molds)
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure how we can help you here :/. Let's disregard the fact you already state one difference in your question (spores being bigger/taller). What prevents you from checking some sources (wikipedia, youtube, books...) and check each of their attribute : Size, growth, feeding/reproduction method(s), resistances...? Indeed you know the best how you want your organism to be : If you give us enough details, you will already have enough to answer your own question, since... Well, you made it and I believe you took inspiration from said slime molds ^^". $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Apr 1 at 9:52
  • $\begingroup$ @TortlienaI I understand perfectly. Maybe I can ask specifically how can slime molds live underground? $\endgroup$
    – lollo259
    Apr 1 at 10:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Iollo259 Yes, as long as it's your version of the slime mold and not the real world one ^^. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Apr 1 at 10:27
  • $\begingroup$ The Anatomically Correct Series deals with a quasi-naturalistic quasi-evolution of reasonably classic creatures from myth, fantasy and sci-fi, etc. As such, you could certainly cast your question in that mold. Looking at what you've got, I agree with Tortliena, that this would almost certainly be met with comments along the lines of "let me google that for you". What we'd really like to see is a question that offers some kind of worldbuilding problem that needs solving. Maybe an evil mage has weaponised the slimemolds for use in his amusement dungeons and now they've escaped! (cont) $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Apr 1 at 16:47
  • $\begingroup$ (cont) Or perhaps one kind of people relies on the slime molds as domesticated sources of X. But another kind of people live nearby who are preyed on or affected by the slime molds. How might they resolve the problem. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Apr 1 at 16:51
  • $\begingroup$ Is this Sandbox question still active? $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 25 at 19:53
0
$\begingroup$

[reserved]

How can a type II civilization harvest energy from supernovae?

Background:

As seen in this question, planetary objects surviving a supernova is a laughable concept without handwavium. The amount of energy being dumped by a supernova so ludicrously enormous that we have a hard time conceptualizing it.

Neutron stars output almost all their energy in neutrinos. The rest is in plasma remnants of the original star, or light generated during the process.

Of course, someone comes along and decides they need that energy. Assuming that they are somewhere past Type II on the Kardashev scale, how exactly would they go about this?

Requirements to consider the supernova harvested:

  • The greater part of energy produced by the supernova needs to be harvested.
  • Equipment can be single-use.
  • Remnant materials do not need to be harvested; as the civilization already does such things on a regular.

Answers cannot include:

  • Engineering the nova to not take place. Compressing it into a black hole and waiting until the heat death of the universe to get your energy back in a trickle of Hawking radiation is not helpful.
  • Extensive use of warping space; this method is going to be inherently inefficient.
  • Generous amounts of MumboJumbonium. Explanations need to be at least partly based in science (E.g. each collector is a stack of neutrinovoltaic cells that will be ablated away in the aftershock.)

Assumptions:

  • Computer hardware is hardened against neutrino radiation that "leaks" through the collectors.
  • Materials science is considerably advanced(Metamaterials are common in-universe) -The civilization is capable of the automated construction of normal Dyson swarms, usually via disassembly of planetary bodies, but rarely, via lifting matter from the star itself.

Proposed tags: supernovas, megastructures, [JBH suggested changing science-based to science-fiction]

$\endgroup$
22
  • $\begingroup$ Are you actually looking for a science-based solution to a problem so far beyond our current technology that it's "indistinguishable from magic?" E.G., the Alcubierre drive is a mathematical hypothesis, not a technological fact. That hypothesis does not grant us insight into how such a drive can be built. I'm thinking this question violates the help center's book rule: too many issues must be addressed to have a science-fiction level answer. This is not a specific question, which is required by the help center. You're asking us to invent an entire technology. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Mar 24 at 5:39
  • $\begingroup$ Let me address all that in a different way. What's your goal or expectation for asking this question? What are you going to do with the result? Let's say you wanted to know how to get energy from radioactive rods. Are you looking for this kind of answer, which would make sense for worldbuilding, or this kind of answer, which doesn't? $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Mar 24 at 5:42
  • $\begingroup$ So it was an infinite list problem. I think these problems could be solved by changing the question from "How" to "Can" and axing most of the background, as it's irrelevant, and as you said, detrimental to the usage of science-based $\endgroup$
    – The Commander
    Mar 24 at 12:01
  • $\begingroup$ Okay @JBH I did some recollection: the reason I want to harvest the energy is computational power. Such a thing was very briefly touched on in the linked answer(linking to another answer). $\endgroup$
    – The Commander
    Mar 25 at 4:15
  • $\begingroup$ @TheCommander I concur with JBH; The "infinite-list" feeling comes from the fact that it's very likely far beyond anyone's real world knowledge. This leads to a state where no answer using real world would be believable, meaning the only viable solution is to draw from the infinite source which is imagination :). Your proposal could work, just be sure to delimit clearly what you want to be checked vs what we should accept without ever complaining it would not work that way (#Frame-challenge). $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Mar 25 at 19:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Tortliena so adding a list of things an answer cannot include would help out in narrowing it, correct? $\endgroup$
    – The Commander
    Mar 25 at 20:02
  • $\begingroup$ Added a few no-gos and clarified the list into do's and don'ts. $\endgroup$
    – The Commander
    Mar 25 at 20:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Tortliena assumptions added as well; I am now drawing blanks. Perhaps you could dream up a frame challenge that works around my question? $\endgroup$
    – The Commander
    Mar 25 at 20:18
  • $\begingroup$ @TheCommander We're not on the same page ^^". I was talking about changing your question from "how to do it?" to "I have made this technomagic system, is this specific concept of it scientifically plausible (ie. can it be done?)?". This kind of question could be useful if you just want to explain/justify one part to make the whole believable, like using cold fusion power to explain how giants mechs are standing (disregarding for instance how it would crumble on itself without moving). $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Mar 27 at 11:17
  • $\begingroup$ @Tortliena so what I'm getting is: Change from "how to do it" to "Can I do it, given the following circumstances?" $\endgroup$
    – The Commander
    Mar 28 at 4:13
  • $\begingroup$ @TheCommander It's even more than circumstances; Think of this as an internal-consistency question : You invented something from the ground-up, and you want a specific part of it to be checked. "E.g. : I made a giant glass bottle house to live in. Disregarding how it would be made and in theory, would using wooden counterforts help make it support its own weight?" Emphasis on "in theory" : the idea is to work with the principle, as you will surely get downvoted (lacking research) if you ask to put a theory into a very, very impractical but concrete case, to say the least :). $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Mar 29 at 23:34
  • $\begingroup$ comment purge probably necessary now; also @Tortliena edited to your suggestions. $\endgroup$
    – The Commander
    Apr 11 at 1:57
  • $\begingroup$ I have to take a step back from WB:SE for a while, something rather unpleasant happened. Do you have the time to have a look back @JBH... Or any other lucky one who read this comment? $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Apr 17 at 8:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Tortliena I can take this. Sorry to hear about the unpleasantness. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Apr 17 at 8:13
  • $\begingroup$ I've read the current question and the comments. You're close. What's missing at this point is a set of clear marching orders for respondents. The only practical answer to "Can a type II civilization harvest energy from supernovae?" is "yes." In other words, that's not a practical question to ask. Per the help center, questions must be specific and answerable. From your list of conditions and limitations, it appears you're asking, "how can a type II civ harvest...?" If that's correct, then we need to find the best way to express the question without it sounding like brainstorming. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Apr 17 at 8:23
0
$\begingroup$

How Do I Re-edit this question to make it more suitable?

TITLE: What is the safest spot for the Achilles heel mark for a warrior?

Context:

Most people are familiar with Achilles. The near indestructible Homeric hero whose one weak point on his whole body was one of his ankle/heels.

According to one myth, that's where his mother, Thetis, held him while dipping him in River Styx. I have read another one, where she kept him on burning fire but Achilles was prematurely pulled out of it via his ankle.

In Trojan Wars, Apollo guided Paris to strike Achilles on his otherwise vulnerable heel, thus killing him.

Background:

An ancient Geek warrior falls in the River Styx (A/N: why and how are irrelevant). Somehow, they survive and achieve Achilles' invulnerability. With invulnerability comes an Achilles heel. However, they can choose where to have this fatal weakness.

Question: Where is the best place to have an actual Achilles heel on one's body for a Greek-era warrior?

What is fatal to Achilles heel?

It is a circular spot of diameter 1.2 cm. It is not so sensitive that a slight poke from a finger or a little prick there would kill the person. This weak spot could stand light scratches and skin grazes. If injured deep enough, it is like a kill switch. Even if the point happens to be in place, if struck in normal condition, the person would have easily survived the wound.

Requirement and Considerations:

  • The person is a warrior.

  • The Achilles heel has to be well protected to not be harmed in such situations: war, skirmish or duels.

  • The Achilles heel spot neither leave visible mark nor feels different from normal skin.

  • The warrior can only use Greek-era armor and clothes. They can not use extra protection if it is easily visible to an enemy and might arouse curiosity.

  • Note, invulnerability is a highly visible power. After some time opponents would cotton on that this warrior is similar to Achilles and would try to actively find his Achilles Heel spot.

Considering the outfit, weapons, and fighting style of the ancient Greek era, pick the best point to have an Achilles' Weak Spot and provide an explanation to support your answer.

I have edited my question according to helpful directions given by reviewers. Does this constitute a well asked question? Should I structure my question more before it is good enough for main site.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Unfortunately your question is fundamentally inappropriate for this site. You're not attempting to establish some fact about your world. The rules of your world are already established and you're asking about what a specific character will do within your world. The question is also structurally unsound. Stack Exchange is designed for questions with specific answers. Your question currently reads more like a discussion prompt than something that's going to have a single objectively better answer. While you could make edits to contort this to fit on WB I'd recommend against that. $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    May 3 at 7:27
  • $\begingroup$ @ Avani Sphennings is the stricter one among us. There's definitely potential, but you need to turn your question around a bit so that people cannot nitpick it's story-based (what sphennings raised). For that, you should rephrase your question to something akin to "What is the safest spot for the Achilles heel mark for (I presume) a warrior?". That way you'll move the subjectivity of choosing to a more objective criterium (it's like the question "where was the location you risked to be hit the most in ancient times?"). $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    May 3 at 11:10
  • $\begingroup$ You should also perhaps focus on a specific combat type (duels, full-sized battles...). Emphasis on "perhaps", I won't be torn in pieces if you don't do that :). $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    May 3 at 11:21
  • $\begingroup$ Then the tips below are true everywhere you are asking this question, even outside WB:SE : Does the character know they have the Achilles's mark, ie. can they add protection to this spot? What is the minimal surface area/size of the spot roughly : like you imprinted the bottom of a teacup on the skin, a bit more, less? This should clarify your constraints a little more ^^. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    May 3 at 14:23
  • $\begingroup$ @Tortliena Thanks for your suggestions. I have fixed the post. Is it better structured now? $\endgroup$
    – Avani
    May 3 at 16:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Avani --- This looks much better to me. It is no longer story based; you've got a focused query with sufficient detail for it to be reasonably objectively answered. The only thing I would suggest really doesn't have anything to do with your question: this isn't really much of an "Achilles heel" if the warrior is not actually vulnerable. Someone has to know where it is in order for the story to work properly. Otherwise, you've just got a character who is highly resistant to common weapons and the injuries they make. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    May 3 at 22:36
  • $\begingroup$ @elemtilas Thanks for feedback. I will be changing that point. $\endgroup$
    – Avani
    May 4 at 0:35
  • $\begingroup$ @Avani I took the extreme (:p) freedom of fixing a typo (invulenrability -> invulnerability). I don't have much to add, and this current version passes my closure vote with ease, and likely the others's too ^^. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    May 4 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ Is this Sandbox question still active? $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 25 at 19:59
0
$\begingroup$

How could a weapon be designed to hit in a ring around the point of impact?

Preliminary context

In my tactical turn-based, square grid based RPG game, I intend to add a wide variety of single use items with unique effects for the player. One of them would mechanically allow one of them to strike from a distance every enemy around one of its ally without harming said ally, offering good crowd-control and area-of-effect capabilities in a coop intensive game.

The area-of-effect of the weapon and its damage both seen in game and in-world
The area-of-effect of this weapon in-game are the red ⚠️ squares (squares are ~1m long). The grey circles roughly delimit what you would expect of the in-world area-of-effect of this weapon.

Unfortunately, I'm a bit out of luck finding out a believable world-explanation of how such weaponry might give such effect. I'd need this to depict a better representation of it, both item-wise and as it is used. Indeed, real-life explosives (the ones to usually have area-of-effects) strike at its strongest at the epicenter, losing potency with distance. I can't find back in my memory if other worlds created a weapon specifically for that purpose, either : Yes there are skills which fire rains of arrows in a perfect circle (and somehow in a split second). There are spells like rings of fire or ice, too. You also get a lot of "shockwave" style attacks, harming everything around the user who somehow stays safe. But no weapon which would not require insane abilities or magic handwavium, and where the user is not the one in the epicenter (preventing the use of the "You're immune to your own weapons" suspension-of-disbelief joker).

So let's not fiddle around the target anymore :

How could a weapon be designed to strike in a ring around the point of impact?

The goal is quite simple : Develop a mechanism for a single-use, ranged weapon which can hit in a "donut" around the point of impact. It can take the shape you want (rifle, grenade, thrown melee weapon...) and use the kind of damage you want (piercing shards, fire, explosion, acid...) as long as this meets this criteria. While you'll very likely need to tell if it is especially suited (or unsuited) for one kind of damage, your answer should focus on the mechanism behind the dispersion of said damage.

I will judge your answer's quality first and foremost on the external simplicity of your design and usage : Indeed, It'll help a lot when drawing its application later on, like its appearance in the action hotbar. The same goes for the usage, I can't afford players to wait through 15 over-the-top steps to deal damage. In short, be clear, quick and simple on the frontline part of it so it will be easier to show what it does at a glance, ie. its affordance.

Constraints and conditions

Now to the conditions :

  • The weapon is expected to incapacitate or even take down humans. This is not an anti-material weapon. Consider the highest damage it could do, regardless of whether it would normally lose power on consecutive hits (like when you swing a sword around you and hit two persons at once). The range should be close to the circles in the picture above, but it can reach 1 or 2 meters further if needed.
  • Anyone -even enemies!- in the epicenter shall not be harmed, at most a scrape or two. I'd rather have the person in the center not doing anything special to avoid getting hurt.
  • Consider that the weapon is used on a flat, even ground, without obstacle and everyone standing up and still. Since my game is 2D, you don't need to make it hit very high or very low.
  • It should be one-time use. This includes grenades or disposable rocket launchers like the panzerfaust, but also (non-boomerang) thrown melee weapons. Liquid or gas holding weapons also fall into this category for me : Spraying an acid vial, pepper sprays...
  • It should be carriable by an human adult and thrown -or launched- from a reasonable, safe distance. The wielder has proficiency with this weapon, and can reliably hit the same spot.
  • Available technology is up to today, minus complex electronics like drones and robots. Also, my world isn't based on hard-science, so get creative and fanciful!

Finally, understand well that you shall not consider why would an engineer ever want it to hit in a ring (I see you in comments!). Jazzy area-of-effects is a very common code of the turn-based tactical games. That's because the suspension-of-disbelief is transfered to the gameplay's benefit : Here, it's the comfy utility of dispatching enemies without harming your tank. A tank player job's is hard and boring. let's not add to it that their friends are purposefully harming them, too!

tags : , , game-world-mechanics (if accepted by the community)

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I think this can definitely work within the confines of game world mechanics. The grid is an abstraction of positioning, so you can most definitely have a valid way to have a circular damage without damaging somebody in the middle. Because it's an abstraction you can declare that while two characters cannot share a space, a character an item can. Say, somebody throws some sort of loop of explosives. It takes up one square and if lands where another character is, then it's assumed the character steps inside the loop. $\endgroup$
    – VLAZ
    Aug 3 at 7:50
  • $\begingroup$ Just to note - there are of course, other options that don't rely on this being a game grid. However, they will also work with the grid. The game tag allows for easier explanation of other options that would normally be chaotic and hard to pull off. $\endgroup$
    – VLAZ
    Aug 3 at 7:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Vlaz When you say it falls in the confines of "game world mechanics", do you mean it would be on-topic/worldbuilding for this site? Or -in other words- would you "off-topic" it if it was posted on main as is? That's one of my main worries with this question, it's not the usual stuff we see here. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Aug 3 at 7:58
  • $\begingroup$ I think the question, as it stands, does work for WB. The game world mechanics angle widens the possible answers, if anything. I'm not quite sure if we need it as a tag. I'm still mulling it over. However, I'm leaning towards "yes". I'll probably post an answer in the meta Q&A. In essence, I feel it's similar to how "hard-science" or "science-based" is used. As the tag implies certain confines. I suppose it's similar to a game world tag - some things are just easier to explain, like grid-based effects. That can just be taken almost for granted, without needing much of an explanation. $\endgroup$
    – VLAZ
    Aug 3 at 8:03
0
$\begingroup$

Would we be able to detect anything when observing the area through which our universe and another universe (aligned perpendicularly in the 4th dimension) intersect?

The concept of a 4th spatial dimension allowing for an infinite number of 3-dimensional universes is something I've long thought of as being interesting. The logical throughput is that you can fit an infinite number of dots in a line, an infinite number of lines in a square, an infinite number of squares in a cube, and therefore an infinite number of cubes in a hypercube. As such, assuming them to be aligned parallel to one another, an infinite number of 3-dimensional universes could fit within a 4-dimensional space.

For the purposes of this question, I am assuming there to be only two 3-dimensional universes in 4-dimensional space, which are not aligned parallel to another, but instead perpendicular to one another. If we align two lines perpendicular with one another (in 2-d space), their intersection makes a 0 dimensional dot. If we align two squares perpendicular with one another (in 3-d space), their intersection makes a 1-dimensional line. If we align two cubes perpendicular with one another (in 4-d space), their intersection makes a 2-d square. As such, two 3-d universes aligned perpendicular with one another and intersecting in 4d space should have a 2 dimensional boundary. Assuming this to be the case in our own universe, is there any way for us to detect this boundary? Could we tell if objects from the other universe were passing through the boundary (while remaining in their own universe)? Or would this go entirely unnoticed by us according to our current understanding of physics?

The reason I am asking is that I am wondering if anything interesting could be done with this concept in worldbuilding, or if its a moot point.

tags: physics, (i cant think of any others)

$\endgroup$
23
  • $\begingroup$ Is this question within the scope of the site? Would it be better asked on the physics se? Would they even accept a question like this? $\endgroup$
    – M S
    Jun 24 at 16:35
  • $\begingroup$ I think it unlikely physics SE would take this one gently. Trying to understand your cosmology here. Why bother saying these 3d universes exist in a single structure if two "adjacent" ones do not interact. That their particles are confined to 3 dims, rather than bleeding into the 4 dims. That topology is discrete, and kinda resembles some quantum multiverse ideas. $\endgroup$
    – BMF
    Jun 24 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ If the physics in the other universe are different from ours, you might get a domain wall sort of ordeal at the boundary. Crossing over might not be possible, or if so could be an energetic event, maybe even destroying one or both universe's depending on the domain walls' stability. $\endgroup$
    – BMF
    Jun 24 at 17:49
  • $\begingroup$ @BMF i don't think adjacent is necessarily the right term, as the universes are not merely near eachother but intersect one another, in the same way the two lines making the + symbol intersect one another. I am saying they are in the same 'structure' (by which I assume you mean the 4d space they are in) because if they were not, they could not intersect and therefore there would be no 2d boundary between the two of them. I was intending for the two universes to interact, but in writing my comment I realized that topologically it only makes sense for the boundary to be 2d, not 3d $\endgroup$
    – M S
    Jun 24 at 17:57
  • $\begingroup$ @BMF I am also intending for both universes to have the exact same set of physics $\endgroup$
    – M S
    Jun 24 at 17:57
  • $\begingroup$ In that case there might be some subtleties in physics that might produce big obvious effects. A near infinitely sharp boundary around the 2d section might act horizon-like and emit a lot of radiation. Not sure how field lines would behave around it. $\endgroup$
    – BMF
    Jun 24 at 18:26
  • $\begingroup$ As for whether the question should be graduated, there's ambiguities that I think some might get worked up about. The kind that usually crop up on Q's that ask about theoretical physics that can't really be helped. I'd wait for someone else's opinion about it because I'm not too sure how to improve it, or whether it's already good to go. $\endgroup$
    – BMF
    Jun 24 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ @BMF Thanks for the help $\endgroup$
    – M S
    Jun 24 at 19:50
  • $\begingroup$ My first reaction to the question would be "yes, by the untold devestation that was left behind." Most analyses of dimensional intersections fail to take two things into account: (a) the solidity of the confluence, those two universes are moving each with a velocity and the objects within them at more complex velocities. There's a lot of space inside a universe, but where contact was made, it would be devestating. (b) There is no example of 2D or 1D objects. They don't exist insofar as we know. So we have no evidence of what would happen in either direction, making this question opinion-based. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 25 at 16:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Having said that, I recommend rewording your question to one of "I want rule X in my world, here is what I have so far, but I'm stumped by Y. What can I do to get past Y?" From a certain point of view, it feels like you already know what you want to do and you're looking for some kind of validation to be comfortable with it. That's the problem of having no evidence of 2D or 1D objects.... there isn't any validation. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 25 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH a) what is the reasoning behind the boundary being devastating, or the boundary itself being solid? b) I don't see how the nonexistence of 1 or 2 dimensional objects has any bearing on my question. They are only mentioned in my question as lower dimensions are easier to visualize and understand, and help demonstrate the logic behind two intersecting 3d universes having a 2d boundary. Regarding your second comment, I think you must be misunderstanding my question (or I am misunderstanding your comment), as I find the entire comment rather confusing (as I don't know what rule X... (cont) $\endgroup$
    – M S
    Jun 25 at 18:26
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH (cont)... problem Y, or the relevance of 1d and 2d objects not existing are). I am asking whether, according to our current understanding of theoretical physics, the setup stated in my question (two universes intersecting one another in 4d space) would be detectable to an inhabitant of either universe (and if so, what they would detect). I am not asking for someone to validate whether the setup itself could possibly exist. $\endgroup$
    – M S
    Jun 25 at 18:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Devestation: Everything's in motion. The idea that the coincidence of two 3D objects moving in 4D space being stationary is totally contrary to what we know of science. An object standing still in relation to the ground of Earth is actually moving a a whomping high velocity through space. Bringing two objects from two universes together (which are both solid...) without causing at least fission-level devestation is unrealistic. Considering the way you wrote your question (which isn't a way that works well for this site), realism is what you're trying to achieve. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 25 at 19:42
  • $\begingroup$ 1D/2D Realism And the issue of realism brings us to the reality that, to the best of humanity's knowledge, there are no such things as 1D or 2D objects. They exist only mathematically and are applicable only in a practical sense because we can see or perceive the effect of being 1D or 2D (such as looking only at one face of a cube, it looks 2D). If you're striving for "realism" then you're stuck with the fact that since there isn't 1D or 2D, there isn't 4D either, and so the rules governing the intersection of two such universes are totally up to you, the worldbuilder. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 25 at 19:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What's our sweet spot? Our sweet spot is when a worldbuilder comes to us and asks, "I want to see the following particular effect, {explain effect in detail} under the following conditions, {explain conditions in detail}. What examples from the Real World can I use to help me model that effect in my imaginary world?" That's worldbuilding. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 25 at 19:49
0
$\begingroup$

Stars in Alien Skys

So for various plot reasons, belief in astrology plays a large part in the story. I am well aware I could make up my own star patterns or exclude them and just refer to the symbols and have a similar effect, but ultimately my desire is to make the star placements as realistic as possible.

Now with that disclaimer out of the way, my question is what method or formulas can I use to calculate what stars would be visible and what configurations they would be looking up from the surface? I also understand that atmosphere and other phenomena can affect what is seen, so to make this as simple as possible the default assumptions for these questions would be ideal conditions, as if you were viewing with zero atmosphere. The only conditions I am concerned with is the location and where everything would be placed based on that location.

Is there a formula or other method that can accomplish this?

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ Are you wanting to make up your own constellations or will the constellations of earth suffice? What exactly do you mean by "realistic star placement"? $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    Aug 2 at 20:59
  • $\begingroup$ @sphennings I would like to make up new ones based on how the stars would look from other planets, to the best of our knowledge, I know we can’t know what it would look like without actually standing on the surface $\endgroup$
    – Amoeba
    Aug 2 at 21:33
  • $\begingroup$ I've changed my mind about how I want to approach your question. This question is the type we like to see on Main, but you've done no research for yourself. Please do so (I know there are at least two Milky Way databases out there). The down-arrow mouse roll-over specifically states, "This question does not show any research effort" and you should expect down votes if you don't explain what research you did and why it didn't solve your problem. A hint, though... there is not a formula to solve this problem. There are formulae. Many many formulae that would take (*Continued*) $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Aug 3 at 0:44
  • $\begingroup$ ... a bigger computer than the one on your desk to process. So you're looking to see if any of those databases include the ability to build a night sky view from the perspective of a star in the database. You might need to contact the database owners and ask. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Aug 3 at 0:46
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH that’s a fair criticism, I haven’t made the research I have don’t apparent, but I have done research, specifically on how astrology works as a well as looking for stellar atlas’s, but so far all I have found are websites like Atlas of the Universe which ends up missing stars and I also don’t even know how translate a 3D map like a 2D view of the sky from another planet, if there is somewhere I can research this more please do tel as I have no success in finding much. $\endgroup$
    – Amoeba
    Aug 3 at 1:51
  • $\begingroup$ One of the rules of the Sandbox is that we're not supposed to answer in the Sandbox. But I suspect I can drop a link or two to help you do a bit more before posting on Main. It's important that you realize a few things. (a) There is no atlas that contains all the stars in the galaxy. None, zero, nada. That's OK for us, we're in the business of building imaginary worlds. Please be sure it's OK for you. (b) There may not be a publically available engine to do what you're doing, but that doesn't mean it's not there. (*Continued*) $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Aug 3 at 3:06
  • $\begingroup$ ... real research means asking questions. Many users (especially new users) think Stack Exchange is a free research site. That's is not the case. SE's model is a place where educated and experienced people can come to ask other educated and experienced people for help dealing with things that are a bit outside their own experience. That model is stretched (considerably) on Worldbuilding because, let's face it, no one is an expert on Magic. But that basic presumption lingers on and it's right that it does. You should contact the atlas people (*Continued*) $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Aug 3 at 3:08
  • $\begingroup$ ... and ask them for their help. (I'm pretty sure) they don't haunt our halls, and they're the most educated and experienced in the field. We love helping people solve their problems, but what we really love doing is helping people become more practiced worldbuilders - and if you're going to focus on realism, that means asking for help everywhere. Finally (c) just to set an expectation, you're not going to get a perfect night sky view from any planet - even Earth. The databases, large as they are, simply are not that complete. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Aug 3 at 3:10
  • $\begingroup$ Start with this post and all of its answers from our sister Stack, then move on to the Gaia Archive. This gets your foot in the door. Google "catalog of stars" and "database of stars" to find smaller databases. Ask questions! Keeping in mind that while the database could be used to get where you want, it's possible but unlikely it has. So set your expectations. Even if you don't discover a solution, explaining everything you did to discover that goes a long way to the credibility of your quesiton. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Aug 3 at 3:27
  • $\begingroup$ I will add that there is a 3d point model of the Milky Way galaxy online, which any 3d modeller can move a camera inside of to simply snapshot the new sky at any angle. It would be an .STL file or .OBJ file. Likely there are more out there. $\endgroup$
    – Vogon Poet
    Aug 22 at 6:45
0
$\begingroup$

No Zombie Cannibalism Allowed!

So we have a virus that turns people into technically living zombies. They need to breathe, eat, drink and sleep just like a normal human. However due to limbic system damage caused by the virus they are ALWAYS extremely hangry, so they get the compulsion to murder unaffected people in cold blood and eat their corpses. Yeesh.

Eventually the cities got overrun with zombies and no healthy humans were left, but strangely the infected never attack each other, no matter how badly starved and hangry they become. They would rather sit down in the shades beside a wall and slowly waste away rather than try to hunt other zombies for food.

What's stopping these zombies from resorting to eating one another? Somewhere on this site someone else wrote that zombies release hormones so they can identify each other as 'friendlies' when they smell the hormone from each other, but zombies can't have a sense of smell (Just like Covid patients!) here to make the story work, and even if they did I doubt that they would care because of how hangry they are.

tags: science-based, creature-design, disease, zombies

$\endgroup$
16
  • $\begingroup$ I'm pretty sure we've had similar questions in the past. From what I remember, diseased individuals are just unlikely to go for other diseased individuals. It's not in the disease's advantage, otherwise they'd quickly destroy each other and massively reduce the infection threat. $\endgroup$
    – VLAZ
    Aug 3 at 7:32
  • $\begingroup$ With that said, I don't think pheromones depend on the sense of smell. Anosmia just means you can't detect smells because the smell receptors are out of commission. However, if you have no sense of smell and you inhale smoke, you're still going to have bad physiological reaction. Just wouldn't be able to detect the smoke with your nose. In somewhat similar manner, pheromones cause a chemical reaction. Not just reaction to odor stimuli. $\endgroup$
    – VLAZ
    Aug 3 at 7:35
  • $\begingroup$ @VLAZ Can you give me a link for the similar question? $\endgroup$
    – Hi0401
    Aug 3 at 9:24
  • $\begingroup$ worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/71837 worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/149528 worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/23794 Just few I found from a cursory search. $\endgroup$
    – VLAZ
    Aug 3 at 10:08
  • $\begingroup$ god damn does that mean i have to delete this question?? $\endgroup$
    – Hi0401
    Aug 3 at 10:39
  • $\begingroup$ Brainstorming is discouraged here. Why doesn't the very obvious "infected flesh has reduced/no nutritional value" not solve the problem? @vlaz's link #2 points out that viruses want to spread, so eating the infected only serves one purpose (if the flesh is edible). Explaining why the obvious solutions don't solve your problem would go a long way to perfecting the question. I'm afraid that "I don't want to be like everyone else" (a popular "just answer my question" response) doesn't cut the SE mustard - which is why the explanations would need to be reasonably rational. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Aug 3 at 13:08
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH Infected flesh having less nutritional value doesn't work. People don't care about nutritional value when they are starving, normally. Besides, the virus wants to spread but it can't just directly hijack the host (cuz they DUMB) so they have to use other means to make the host behave the way they want. $\endgroup$
    – Hi0401
    Aug 3 at 13:51
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH Okay let me restate my statement... Having infected flesh have lower nutritional value would not work because A. It makes no sense that infected flesh would have little nutrition simply because they were tainted by a virus. If I shot an animal with Covid and cooked it for dinner I suspect that it would have the nutritional value of an uninfected animal of the same species (But I don't get Covid from eating it) and B. Having little nutritional value in infected flesh doesn't work well for the story because it reduces zombie lifespan, real life humans depend on energy from muscles during $\endgroup$
    – Hi0401
    Aug 3 at 14:13
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH starvation. C. Even if it did make sense it wouldn't stop zombies from feasting on one another because humans can't magically tell the nutritional value of food simply by looking (unless it's labeled on the package or something) and even if they could it wouldn't matter to the zombies, because humans don't really care about the nutrition value of what they are eating when they get really hungry as long as it fills them up. For example people in my country had to resort to eating leather belts and tree bark during times of famine. (Even though zombies aren't really hungry, it's just brain $\endgroup$
    – Hi0401
    Aug 3 at 14:17
  • $\begingroup$ damage.) Also the virus obviously has to make the host go after non-hosts to spread itself, that is true. But it's not sentient enough to scream at the person it has infected "That guy across the street is infected too!! DONT EAT HIM!!!" so it has to manipulate the victims' body some other way to achieve it's goal, but I don't know exactly how and that's why I'm asking. I'm also not saying like 'just answer my question' here or 'I don't want to be like everyone else', I'm just asking him for more information and whether if I have to take my question down since it's been answered elsewhere. $\endgroup$
    – Hi0401
    Aug 3 at 14:22
  • $\begingroup$ (Where's my eye rolling emoji when I need it). (a) No brainstorming. (b) What I handed you were obvious answers - just because you don't like them doesn't mean they're not obvious. You set the rules for your world - there is no science-based when it comes to zombies. If you choose to make the virus/bacteria/toxin/zombie-causing-whatever unpallatable to the virus/bateria/etc. That's a perfectly good solution. (c) The point you're making about leather belts and tree bark ... (*Continued*) $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Aug 3 at 16:03
  • $\begingroup$ ... is that your question can't be answered in anyway other than, "you can't have this, they'll eat whatever is in front of them first." And your last complaint was the successful prmise of World War Z (the infected don't attack the infected). (d) And what I'm trying to do is help you understand what you need to do to successfully ask the question. Don't like what I'm recommending? Take it down and ask it somewhere else. No skin off my back. BTW, the correct response is "thank you," not an inadequate explanation of why what I'm recommending is wrong. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Aug 3 at 16:05
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH I've stated valid reasons on why the 'obvious' solutions won't work... and I don't know what you mean by 'no brainstorming' when it appears to me that the whole point of the site is 'brainstorming'. People thinking up solutions to each other's problems is called 'brainstorming'... right? And besides, if zombies can't count as 'science based' because we have to make up EVERYTHING about our own rules, then what's the point of the tag? None of the worldbuilding stuff on this site is real. $\endgroup$
    – Hi0401
    Aug 7 at 11:56
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not trying to start a fight here. Don't act like that's what I'm doing. $\endgroup$
    – Hi0401
    Aug 7 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ "Every question must have an answer." If you want to throw many options on the wall to solve your world's problem, that can't happen here. There are votes and you get to check the correct single answer. Brainstorming and expert opinions are not the same thing. You will be getting responses from people with expertise, just like getting second and third opinions from doctors. You do not brainstorm your appendicitis treatment, you seek second opinions. That is what happens here. Your question doesn't seem all that difficult to answer as it stands, is anything here close to an answer? $\endgroup$
    – Vogon Poet
    Aug 22 at 6:55
0
$\begingroup$

Lengthening Earth’s Day/Night Cycle

Tags geophysics hard-science post-apocalypse humans science-based

Proposed Question Which of these is the most scientifically plausible way to bring the Earth to a 28- to 30-hour day (i.e. rotation speed) in the “near future” (~200 years) for my post-apocalyptic, world-building concept?

  • A. Asteroid impact?
  • B. Neutron star fly-by?
  • C. A closer moon?
  • D. Internal disruption to Earth’s core (inner or outer)?
  • E. Other?: ____________

NOTES:

• Killing off most (but not all) of humanity is not a problem; it’s preferred.
• Major geophysical disasters expected.
• Earth’s orbit may or may not be affected.
• Tidal locking NOT preferred.
• Reduction in magnetic field is expected.

Sandbox Questions

  1. Is a multiple-choice-type question acceptable? The options are based on the research I’ve already done.
  2. Is an open-ended “Other?” at the end acceptable?
  3. I think this question works here in “Worldbuilding” as it’s the geophysics basis of the world being built, but if you think otherwise, let me know.

Proposed Edit - question wording:

Scientifically plausible way to bring the Earth to a 28- to 30-hour solar day

I'm worldbuilding a post-apocalyptic story set in the near future (~200 years). In my story, the Earth's rotation speed has been slowed down to 28- to 30-hours per day. I'm trying to find the most scientifically plausible way for this to happen.

My research suggests that it may be possible through one of the following events:

  • An asteroid impact
  • A neutron star flyby
  • The moon getting closer to the Earth
  • A disruption of the Earth's core

My setting requirements

The cataclysmic event has wiped out most of humanity, and will have caused a series of major geophysical disasters, including tidal waves, earthquakes, volcanoes, and weather tragedies.

The death toll is estimated that billions of people have been killed. The few survivors are left to pick up the pieces of a shattered world.

Whatever the cause, the event has had a devastating impact on the planet. The Earth's orbit may or may not have been affected, but tidal locking did not happen. However, the event is expected to lead to a reduction in the Earth's magnetic field, which could have a number of consequences, such as increased solar radiation exposure and more erratic weather patterns.

In addition to the above, here are some other likely consequences of the cataclysm, per research:

  • Food shortages and famine
  • Water shortages and drought
  • Disease outbreaks
  • Social unrest and violence
  • Economic collapse
  • Environmental degradation

The above consequences are acceptable side-effects to the alteration of the solar day.

Q: What cataclysm might create this world within 200 years?

$\endgroup$
9
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (a) The hard-science and science-based tags are mutually exclusive. It's worth reading both tag wikis, especially the wiki for hard-science. That tag is ruthless. (b) It is VERY worth your time to review this series of questions from one user asking how to change the rotation of Venus. Almost anything you ask will likely be closed as a duplicate of those questions. (c) Asking if A-D can solve your problem is asking four questions. Asking multiple questions is specifically (*Continued*) $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Feb 25 at 4:29
  • $\begingroup$ ... a reason to close questions. Yes, they're similar, but they also require very different analyses. Thus, the Q as asked, if not closed as a duplicate, would be closed as Needs More Focus (asking more than one question). (d) "E" is dangerous to ask because it's open-ended and Stack Exchange prohibits that (see help center). (e) Multiple-choice questions are only acceptable when the consequence of each option is already known and you're asking for the better option for your given circumstance. In this case, those consequences are not known. (*Continued*) $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Feb 25 at 4:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ... (e) As mentioned, open-ended questions are prohibited. In fact, it's worth your time to carefully read our tour and the following two pages, help center and help center, to better understand the limits of this site. There are limits, some imposed by this Stack, but most imposed by Stack Exchange. (f) Otherwise, yes, this is a great question for here. However, please note that we grew tired of that other user asking question-after-question about changing Venus' rotation. If his Qs don't solve your problem, you'll need to be very specific and very focused. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Feb 25 at 4:34
  • $\begingroup$ @JBH Well, you have certainly given me a lot to consider here. I will do so and appreciate your in-depth response. Thanks. $\endgroup$
    – eHaraldo
    Feb 26 at 18:44
  • $\begingroup$ Is this Sandbox question still active? $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Jun 25 at 20:00
  • $\begingroup$ @ VogonPoet Don't forget to remind people that you edited their question with a proposal edit. This kind of thing is quite unusual here ^^. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Aug 22 at 8:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Tortliena This question was right up my alley, have a couple just like it myself - I couldn’t let it die. Can we adopt a question? $\endgroup$
    – Vogon Poet
    Aug 23 at 2:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @VogonPoet I personally don't see any issue asking your own very heavily inspired question in the sandbox. However, I believe it's best then to write a new answer here. Otherwise it would feel like you're forcibly grabbing eHaraldo's sheet of paper from their hands to scribble your own things ^^". After all, they may have a different viewpoint, and worse a different writing style. We'll just have to recall ourselves to give the link to your promoted question to eHaraldo if they're very similar to this one. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Aug 23 at 7:11
  • $\begingroup$ OK. Doing this for the community. $\endgroup$
    – Vogon Poet
    Aug 23 at 14:31
0
$\begingroup$

Title:

Scientifically plausible way to bring the Earth to a 28- to 30-hour solar day

Doomsday clocks are sort of a common theme in my stories. When I saw @eHaraldo post the sandbox question about slowing down earth’s rotation to create a 30-hour day, and then apparently abandon it; I am now adopting it. Because it’s a good question.

I'm worldbuilding a post-apocalyptic story set in the near future (~200 years). In my story, the Earth's rotation speed has been slowed down to 28- to 30-hours per day. I'm trying to find the most scientifically plausible way for this to happen. Note: the 200 years is approximate, and it allows for the day to be slowed down less abruptly. i.e., **there is no need for a single, abrupt event **.

The scale of the event, given the above numbers will require an input of 30.014 billion zetajoules of energy applied against the earth's rotation through that ≅200 years. It won't all go to slowing the planet, figure something bigger to offset waste.

My research suggests that it may be possible through one of the following events:

  • A barrage/trail of asteroid impacts
  • A neutron star flyby
  • The moon doing something horrible
  • A disruption of the Earth's core

My setting requirements

Given: the cataclysmic event has wiped out most of humanity, and will have caused a series of major geophysical disasters, including tidal waves, earthquakes, volcanoes, and weather tragedies.

Some humans and enough of a biosphere to keep them alive must have survived, but mass devastation of the planet including extinction of many species is acceptable and expected.

The Earth's orbit may or may not have been affected, but tidal locking did not happen.

The above consequences are acceptable side-effects to the alteration of the solar day.

The obvious things:

Answers need not mention the following, it's expected:

  • Food shortages and famine
  • Water shortages and drought
  • Disease outbreaks
  • Social unrest and violence
  • Economic collapse
  • Environmental degradation

Q: What cataclysm might create this world within 200 years?

I assume the tags for this will be [planets] [apocalypse] [solar-system] [science-based]

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ 1. Suggest that the "My setting requirements" can be condensed down to "Some humans and enough of a biosphere to keep them alive must have survived, but mass devastation of the planet including extinction of many species is acceptable and expected." 2. Heading is saying "scientifically plausible" but there are no tags for level of realism. 3. Suggest specifying whether it can be done deliberately by very, very powerful aliens, since I can't see a way to leave any biosphere if the change results from a single event. $\endgroup$
    – KerrAvon2055
    Sep 15 at 4:36
  • $\begingroup$ @KerrAvon2055 I've incorporated those suggestions and added some research. I had a very similar question a while back, this might fit that plotline. $\endgroup$
    – Vogon Poet
    Sep 15 at 6:15
0
$\begingroup$

What qualities would an AGI need to gain legal protections today?

Sandbox notes:
This question was closed as "opinion based" however it is important to my many other AGI questions. I need this world built. Any help is great.
- Related question for this world
- What are the parenting options available to species that reproduce by fragmentation?
- What faith do my AI follow that is most belligerent to human traditions and beliefs?
Per the Meta reference on "stoy based closing", this question is on topic, as it asks: "What could cause a government [English common law] to pass such-and-such law [AGI rights] given these societal conditions [an AGI of X definition is created]"

First: assume society is as it is today, British common law; United States might be easiest but any government will suffice.

My story has an AGI species interacting with humans and their definition needs to snub any qualms about, "The police wouldn't do that because legally..."

A good answer provides the "what" portion of the on-topic example question in the Meta about "Why is my question too 'Story-based'"; which is formed as:

What could cause a government to pass such-and-such law given these societal conditions?

Where:

  • What Is the answer you give, narrowly defining qualities of an AGI
  • government is English common law government
  • such-and-such law is, specifically, the Bill of Rights principle of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" classifying these fictional AGI as "men" in the same way it now classifies women as "men" in modern interpretation.
  • The societal conditions are that a new artificial species has been created and propagated throughout society.

A good question avoids

  1. changes to society
  2. relating this species to current AI or its methods
  3. simplistic "just write a law" answers (laws don't protect anything under common law; blind protections of the law works only in dictatorships)

The Common Law principle that applies here

This is an aside for clarification
Laws of society can only grant rights if there is some means to remedy the violation of the right. For example, a law that protects a human’s right to breathe water can’t be tried in court even if some human finds out they can’t breathe water. The law simply can not possibly “fix” the thing that’s been “taken” from you - an impossible ability to breathe water. That is a ridiculous example, I know, but ridiculous laws do happen. The point is, simply saying you have a “right” to this or that doesn’t create any legal right unless you're in a dictatorship. The common law principle originated in Roman law as ubi jus ibi remedium, “where there is a right, there is a remedy”, and remains in effect today when our courts decide if you have been violated.

But this principle applies to my problem through its logically equivalent contrapositive: Si nulla remedium existit, tunc nulla ius existit. Thus the existence of rights is contingent upon the availability of remedies to enforce and protect those rights. Without a remedy, any purported rights become meaningless and unenforceable. Ergo; we do not put dead murderers on trial, punish insane felons, or sue dead offenders, or punish people who safely shoot their own computer. What could the judge take from one and give to the other to remedy your loss?
A real-world example: we have a right to have our credit information accurately reported. This law is called the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). But even if the credit company gives false information about your credit, the court can’t and won't give you anything. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins (2016) ruled that even though misleading figures were published by the credit card company, the plaintiff could not show that they actually lost anything from inaccurate or incomplete information in their credit reports. There is no right to relief until you have actually “lost” something.
thought experiment
This is about designing a fictional Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), and answering what “ingredient”—for lack of a better word—would afford it rights under existing common law: Let’s assume we invent the asked fictional AGI, and we put them into a mechanical body. Now let’s assume a group lobbies and passes a law that makes it illegal to willfully dismember and destroy the AGI, and treat such an act as a “wrongful death.” They classify this as a crime just like it would be for a human (because again, no laws are changed)

When an AGI is destroyed, someone claiming a relationship to it wants the system to prosecute for wrongful death. Well, there clearly exists a “wrongful death” law in the books because it was passed. But the judge’s first job is to decide if some remedy exists to what was “lost.” This means the judge has to be convinced that at first, the AGI even had a right to life before asking if a life has been lost.

So the question came to me: If an AGI is a computer program, and computer programs can be and are backed up and saved regularly, so effectively they can only be lost by deliberate manipulation of the server; does a computer program have a “right to life?” This doesn't work! Something has to be different about these AGI.

What about our world (specifically, about the qualities of an AGI in this world) needs to be changed

to give artificially generated algorithms and programs a right to life, that could be recognized and fairly remedied in a human justice system? (Answers do not need to fix the problem, the question only asks what needs fixing)

Emphasis again, I don’t believe our real world could possibly argue for the right of an artificial construct to exist, as they currently exist. The question tries to pin down what prevents this, and removes that quality from what we call an "AI" (by changing the AGI, or maybe the environment - anything except the basic principles of jurisprudence)

I can’t state this enough. This question is NOT asking about current AI or anything existing today.

$\endgroup$
18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So you came to the sandbox ^^. I'll be sadly honest, not many people come here, so you probably won't have much help besides mine. I'll try my best though 🐶. If we sum up a bit your situation, since you accumulated a good chunk of small edits and clarifications, it'd be wise to make a brand new V2 to start on a new leaf. However, you mustn't invalidate existing answers, and at the same time I guess you do wanna ask this exact question... We're in a kinda tough spot 😵. Guess the best thing to do right now is to improve it then check whether it should be an edit or a new question altogether. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Sep 15 at 13:51
  • $\begingroup$ The first thing I'd do is to focus on what this question is about rather than what it isn't about. The main topic should take at least half of the question : This will help people understand what you're looking for and prevent undesired topics to indirectly stain your question. Still, I believe it'll be useful to keep one (and only one) paragraph telling you're not looking for a change of law but a change of A.G.I., if I understand what you want correctly. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Sep 15 at 13:51
  • $\begingroup$ To improve directly on the "opinion-based" part, the classic thing to do is to tell as accurately as possible what your criteria for a best answer is. This often goes with superlative, e.g. : "What's the safest way to carry and throw marble sized high-explosive grenades?". Note this "superlative" should be defined as clearly as you can : "efficient" and "best" are commonly used, but they often are thought to be too blurry. Might be hard to pull off here, but if you do that it'll definitely win you some points 💯. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Sep 15 at 14:00
  • $\begingroup$ For the resting rest, I guess we'll have to see how it goes and work from there ^^. I'm not confident enough right now to tell you whether the two things above will get your question reopened, yet I don't have many advices at this point that will ensure whatever you do it'll get better. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Sep 15 at 14:09
  • $\begingroup$ The entire question is the last sentence; which is a less specific wording of the title: "It’s a fictional AGI that can fit into our society; why does it fit?" (e.g., because it can reciprocate?) i.e., why is it legally protected in existing law. A good answer shows what quality the AGI has that makes it fit (e.g., because it can reciprocate?). I could move all the negatives to a "a good answer avoids.." block at the bottom, The risk is people scanning the first bit & hastily posting answers that invalidate rearranging the question. So the "DO NOT" is critical to avoid crippling non-answers. $\endgroup$
    – Vogon Poet
    Sep 15 at 14:12
  • $\begingroup$ When you talk too much about "it's not X", it means you haven't clearly defined "it's Y". I know you can describe something about what it's not, like "dogs are not insects, not birds, not fishies...", but you'll never really get to the core if you don't define what it is : "a dog is a carnivorous mammal". This will make your question much shorter (so easier to read and understand) and clearer (people will not as easily bind themselves to some off-topic questions just because they were written). This is why this part should be summarized ^^. $\endgroup$
    – Tortliena
    Sep 15 at 14:24
  • $\begingroup$ Updated. The "It's Y" is stated as "artificially generated algorithms and programs," and that's the only unchangeable aspect of them. The other "It's Y" is: "compatible with modern legal protections without changing the law." $\endgroup$
    – Vogon Poet
    Sep 15 at 16:08
  • $\begingroup$ There are many legal systems which all operate differently. Within a legal system each government has their own set of laws which operate differently. Even within a specific legal system and set of laws there can be differing precedence depending on the court that hears such a case. The scope of your question is far too broad without this. $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    Sep 15 at 17:32
  • $\begingroup$ I cannot think of any system for determining whether a non-person shall be granted the same rights as a person under the law. If such a system exists then that system will have your answer. If such a system doesn't exist then any petition of personhood under the law will require some controversy requiring the adjudication of the courts. This will include persuasive arguments on how to interpret and extend existing laws to cover a novel situation, both for and against the granting of personhood in this specific case. $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    Sep 15 at 17:38
  • $\begingroup$ In other words in the absence of explicit laws on the subject the traits necessary to grant an AI legal rights will be the result of how a judge chooses to rule based on the competing actions of at least two individuals. Keep in mind that these arguments will be focused on the specifics of the case. The judge, if convinced will then establish an appropriate standard. That much character motivated action has nothing to do with any fact of your world and everything to do with hoy you decide events within your world will play out. Such a question is unsuitable for this site. $\endgroup$
    – sphennings
    Sep 15 at 17:45
  • $\begingroup$ IOW the case would resolve to Virginia v. Loving or State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes in determining personhood. I agree, it would do that. I need the question to steer away from the assumption the answer has to win a Supreme Court ruling on one case. The world needs a definition of a being that could have standing in that court and nothing more. With standing, there is protection; standing isn’t a choice, it’s constitutionally defined - federal in the case of “men created equal”. I chose those tags for that reason. $\endgroup$
    – Vogon Poet
    Sep 15 at 21:09
  • $\begingroup$ "The world needs a definition of a being that could have standing in that court an dnothing more." You don't understand that your problem is a failure to understand the underpinnings of law and how it came to pass. I have a family full of attorneys and it's been fascinating to discuss with them over the decades the "rights" or "needs" of the poor, the homeless, the wealthy.... most of whom aren't treated as "people" today, but as a "class," disassociating and disenfranchising them from the basic rights of "people." That's why I agree with the initial closure reason of ... (*Continued*) $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Sep 16 at 13:59
  • $\begingroup$ ... opinion-based, but it could just as easily be closed for violating the book rule. The problem is that you're looking at law today with a snapshot view and believe that all you need is a paragraph of text to solve your problem. This, despite what paragraphs we have having been developed after millenia of blood and centuries of debate and experimentation. You're asking us to put the cart before the horse and you're expecting some form of definitive answer when, in reality, the development of the legal structure you're looking for would be a novel (and an interesting one) ... (*Continued*) $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Sep 16 at 14:02
  • $\begingroup$ ... all by itself. But, if we are to attempt to ask and answer this question, it must begin in a way that reflects your astute observation of there needing something to lose. Most (if not all) Western law is based on the premise that the person or organization seeking redress can define, not what they could lose, but what they've factually lost due to something in the past and that an argument can be made that what was lost had either intrinsic or factual value. But, most poingant, is the reality that without the ability to convince in court ... (*Continued*) $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Sep 16 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ ... that something had intrinsic or factual value, what's left is a revolution to establish in a foundation belief that value. I regret that you appear to be trying to patch an existing system when what you will be required to do is rebuild it. $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    Sep 16 at 14:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .