|
Xenomrph posted:So they're microrobots instead of nanorobots, which is kind of just a semantic difference considering what's going on. At it's core, it's not actually literally a "liquid", it's a bunch of small, independently-controlled robots functioning in tandem to act as a liquid. It looks like a liquid, acts like a liquid, and is exclusively described as a liquid. Look at what happens when it gets broken apart: the individual clumps cling together like a liquid, showing surface tension. Your argument depends on the absurd idea that the T-1000 is made of nanomachines that are programmed to pretend to be a liquid purely for the benefit of an invisible audience.
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
Gatts posted:Thanks though it was my cousin who isn't a goon. The Powder Terminator is awesome. 'Powder Terminator' just makes me wish that it ended with him chasing Sarah Conner through a thunderstorm in an open field with his arms outstretched.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Ror posted:'Powder Terminator' just makes me wish that it ended with him chasing Sarah Conner through a thunderstorm in an open field with his arms outstretched. Suddenly him coming back for her when she was 9 makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It looks like a liquid, acts like a liquid, and is exclusively described as a liquid. Maybe they aren't programmed to pretend to be a liquid, perhaps the actual composition of the physical nanomachines themselves causes it to behave like a liquid by its very makeup.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:The alternative is that it's somehow literally a liquid, which is somehow programmable with artificial intelligence (how?) and can actively control itself even when in small pieces (again, how?). How the gently caress should I know? There is no requirement that future technology be limited to the hypothetical technologies about which there is current speculation. It possesses characteristics that don't line up with what we would expect from nanotechnology. As such, we can either make the bizarre assumption that it is simply a weird portrayal of nanotech, or we can accept that it represents an advance that would be inexplicable from our current perspective, as countless technological advances would be from the perspective of people from earlier times. You're a caveman seeing an airplane and deciding it must be flapping, because no one can explain to you how else something could fly. It's on you to argue at least one of how it must be nanotech or how the movie is communicating that it's nanotech.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
I think the T-1000 is self-evidently some kind nano/micro-machine thing. The idea of a literal 'liquid metal' having some way to reform itself without actual processing power/ability is not something I can suspend my disbelief over. But it's obviously not the same 'kind' of nanobots as the Connornator. I think the comparison made last page to Man O' Wars is apt - the T-100 is an agglomeration of a shitload of little nano-terminators, and they ust appear physically to be 'liquid metal'. If the T-1000 used its components as distributed processing, that would also explain why pieces broken off of it either went dormant (the hook in the hood that just sat there instead of killing John in T2) or not capable of higher intelligence other than 'find the rest of me' (t1k bit after the smelter scene). I haven't seen Genisys yet but from the teasers I would think that the Connornator is an even more advanced outgrowth of the T-1000 research - also a nanomachine-based terminator, but no longer needing a physical connection between all its components to function.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:
I can. Its the future baby! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:I can. Its the future baby! I was just going to edit my post to say that the T-1000 vfx reminded me of 'memory plastic' that shows up in some sci-fi media. Sci-fi houses with chairs coming out of the floor, that sort of thing. But it almost always comes down to the 'plastic' either being nanomachines itself or infused with nanomachines to do the actual changing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It's on you to argue at least one of how it must be nanotech or how the movie is communicating that it's nanotech. WarLocke posted:I think the T-1000 is self-evidently some kind nano/micro-machine thing. "Liquid metal" is convenient 1991 shorthand for audiences who don't know what a nanomachine is, especially when within the story you've got a character trying to convey the concept to a 10-year-old as simply as possible. And incidentally, the T2 novelization outright calls it a nanomachine. http://www.geocities.ws/fansnub/t2tech.html This page has a bunch of quotes from the novelization: http://www.goingfaster.com/term2029/t1000techdata.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
The T-1000 has no biological tissue whatsoever; how it made it through the time machine in the film is simply a plot hole on Cameron's part.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Immortan posted:The T-1000 has no biological tissue whatsoever; how it made it through the time machine in the film is simply a plot hole on Cameron's part.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Sure. In fact I'll let the reply right below yours do it for me: None of this is evidence for anything. It's basically a restatement of the idea that any future technology presented in fiction must be limited to the hypothetical technologies about which there is current speculation, which is silly. That the novelist is subject to the same limitation doesn't change the movie. And I can play the same game. How does the nanotechnology work? What's its power source? How does it communicate and self-organize? What's it made of?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:None of this is evidence for anything. It's basically a restatement of the idea that any future technology presented in fiction must be limited to the hypothetical technologies about which there is current speculation, which is silly. That the novelist is subject to the same limitation doesn't change the movie.  answer, so the Terminator puts it in terms a 10-year-old can understand: "liquid metal". It's not literally liquid metal, it just behaves like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:The movie as presented shows something that acts like a nanomachine which operates as a liquid for whatever reason This phrase is self-contradictory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:This phrase is self-contradictory.  It's a bunch of little machines which, when bonded together, behave like a liquid when "at rest", and can be given commands to become solids/sharp objects/non-complex machines.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:No it isn't, in fact it's self-evident. Getting past how weird it is to claim that "is a nanomachine" could be a self-evident truth, it's contradictory to say the presentation is that it "acts like a nanomachine" when the dominant visual is it being a liquid, which is justified by you as being "for whatever reason," with no connection between the liquidity and the nanomachine nature. You're starting with it being a nanomachine then thrashing about for how that might behave like a liquid. You can't then go claim that the presentation, when the presentation is it being a liquid, is how you're getting that it's a nanomachine. your evil twin posted:I personally think the T-1000 is a liquid metal that is infused with nanomachines, and those nanomachines control the shape and behaviour of the liquid metal. I'm not trying to argue with what people want to think, but it's pretty clearly not established as this in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
I personally think the T-1000 is a liquid metal that is infused with nanomachines, and those nanomachines control the shape and behaviour of the liquid metal. While the Connorbot is composed entirely of nanomachines. (Worth noting that in T3 the TX actually had a similar vulnerability to magnets as the Connorbot... it got stuck to a particle accelerator, and then its liquid metal skin flowed off its body and stuck directly to the accelerator. The Connorbot is especially vulnerable because it is a cloud of nanites, it doesn't have any other substance or material to glue itself together.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Where is the T-1000's neural net processor located?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Getting past how weird it is to claim that "is a nanomachine" could be a self-evident truth, it's contradictory to say the presentation is that it "acts like a nanomachine" when the dominant visual is it being a liquid, which is justified by you as being "for whatever reason," with no connection between the liquidity and the nanomachine nature. Like I can't believe that someone thinks the T-1000 is literally liquid metal. What does that phrase, "liquid metal", even mean in the context of the T-1000. What controls it and allows it to become solid? Why don't the individual globs become their own little mini-terminators and seek out their target on their own? Why doesn't it generate heat when it changes shape from a liquid to a solid? All of this is answered with one obvious answer: it's a nanomachine that acts like a liquid. In fact it's so obvious that the novelization written based on the movie's script reached that conclusion before the movie even came out, and "it's a nanomachine" was the obvious conclusion most viewers reached once they knew what nanotechnology was. You're acting like there's one singular way a nanomachine can function, and that the Connorbot is it and that therefore if it doesn't behave like the Connorbot, it can't be a nanomachine. The T-1000 is less advanced than Connorbot, so its nanomachines behave like a liquid instead of like a gas. They can't fly or swarm, instead they flow because that's how the tiny little machines maintain cohesion. The T-1000 is made of different material than the Connorbot and has different capabilities, but it's still a type of nanomachine. Sir Kodiak posted:I'm not trying to argue with what people want to think, but it's pretty clearly not established as this in the movie. Parachute posted:Where is the T-1000's neural net processor located?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:An intelligent liquid metal is nonsense gobbledygook Yep! That doesn't mean it's actually nanotechnology. It means it's sci-fi technobabble without a known real equivalent. And, man, is that not what "self evident" means.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Yep! That doesn't mean it's actually nanotechnology. It means it's sci-fi technobabble without a known real equivalent. Are you implying that a science-fiction action movie about time-travel and murderous robots is not completely 100% within the realm of scientific plausibility?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:Are you implying that a science-fiction action movie about time-travel and murderous robots is not completely 100% within the realm of scientific plausibility? Normally I'd never suggest such a thing, but I think this may be the rare case where sci-fi include a plot device without rigorous technological support.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
The T-1000 is actually the race Odo belongs to from DS9. quote:Changelings were at least partially composed of morphogenic enzymes, the molecules responsible for their shapeshifting ability. (DS9: "Things Past")
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Yep! That doesn't mean it's actually nanotechnology. It means it's sci-fi technobabble without a known real equivalent. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm fine dropping it if you aren't up to posting, but I feel "agree to disagree" would be more appropriate if you'd actually bothered to respond to my arguments. This isn't a case where we boiled it down to some fundamental point of disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I'm fine dropping it if you aren't up to posting, but I feel "agree to disagree" would be more appropriate if you'd actually bothered to respond to my arguments. This isn't a case where we boiled it down to some fundamental point of disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Parachute posted:Where is the T-1000's neural net processor located? Left nipple.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I did respond to your arguments, and we did boil it down to a fundamental point of disagreement: I feel the movie makes it self-evident that the T-1000 is a nanomachine based on how it behaves, and you don't. What do you mean by the term "self-evident" here that is distinct from the word "evident"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What do you mean by the term "self-evident" here that is distinct from the word "evident"? As an aide I especially like that the wikipedia definition of "self evident" uses the following proposition as an example: "A finite whole is greater than, or equal to, any of its parts" You know, like a nanomachine. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:It's evident without needing dialogue in the scene to spell it out. I see what the T-1000 does, and even if the movie had never said the phrase "liquid metal", I'd say "oh that's a bunch of nanomachines, that's obvious". And even when the movie does say "liquid metal", my mind says "that's a nonsense phrase so a 10-year-old can grasp what's going on, but it's still obviously nanomachines". It's self evident. quote:In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is one that is known to be true by understanding its meaning without proof What is your proposition?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What is your proposition? Was that a trick question?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:What is your proposition? Well, liquid metal shapeshifting terminators don't actually exist, see...
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:The T-1000 is a nanomachine based on its behavior. And you're claiming that this is evident without proof? That all I need to do is understand the meaning of this sentence and that, without reference to the external facts (such as anything from the movie), I should know this to be true? Because that's what the definition you linked me to would demand.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:And you're claiming that this is evident without proof? That all I need to do is understand the meaning of this sentence and that, without reference to the external facts (such as anything from the movie), I should know this to be true? The T-1000, within the movie (Terminator 2, to be precise) behaves in a manner indicative of nanomachines as they are presented in many other sci-fi media. From this I draw the conclusion that 'liquid metal' is a quick reply to shut up a 10-year-old and shot-hand for 'it's a bunch of nanomachines you brat'
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:The T-1000, within the movie (Terminator 2, to be precise) behaves in a manner indicative of nanomachines as they are presented in many other sci-fi media. I don't quite get how this is a reply to the post you quoted, but I'm curious what media you're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Well the sentence references the movie by virtue of the whole "based on its behavior" part, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. You realize "self-evident" is synonymous with "obvious", right? Because if you have to resort to epistemological semantic games because your point is that feeble, I think we're better off going back to agreeing to disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I don't quite get how this is a reply to the post you quoted, but I'm curious what media you're talking about. You asked why I/we thought it was nanomachines, and my reply is that it acts like nanomachines in the movie. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Well the sentence references the movie by virtue of the whole "based on its behavior" part, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. I wanted to check what you meant by "self-evident" – I suspected you meant "obvious" – so I asked and you linked me to a page that's specifically about a formal definition other than that colloquial one. That you actually do mean "obvious" is precisely my point about you not producing a response: you basically write over and over again that it's "obvious," which of course of doesn't illuminate anything. That's why I focused in on that word. WarLocke posted:You asked why I/we thought it was nanomachines, and my reply is that it acts like nanomachines in the movie. Not in the post you quoted. Anyways, I'm actually curious about those examples. The T-1000 seemed like a pretty novel effect to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
 autism levels critical
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 18:18 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Not in the post you quoted. Anyways, I'm actually curious about those examples. The T-1000 seemed like a pretty novel effect to me. The first example that springs to mind is Ian Banks' Culture books. 'Memory forms' are innocuous items that if manipulated the right way change into something else. Such as an implanted tooth pulled out unfurling into a pistol. Same theory as a T-1000, only the terminator is self-aware/directed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:24
|
|