So say you were given the ability to create any object you can imagine. The catch is that the moment the object is seen, heard, or touched, it vanishes in its entirety.
The only particular use I can think of for this ability is traps. Use a piece of illusory string as a detonator. Once it's observed, it stops holding in the spring. Throw down a cloth over an illusory bridge. Once someone steps on it, they touch the bridge (even through the cloth, it would still require some tactile feedback), which demanifests immediately.
Can you think of any other uses for this power? In particular, can you break the game with this?
some kind of battery with infinite energy
boom handheld world destroyer
>>43830535
If it explodes, the moment you heard or felt the explosion, the matter/energy of that explosion would cease to exist.
Though using it as a fuel cell might work so long as the energy were contained and transformed first... explosive energy would be out, but contained, steady stream power might work.
>>43830484
Wait, so it's when people touch it, or when anything touches it?
Couldn't I create an engine that combusts infinitely and never produces any waste product and use it to instantly solve a huge amount of problems for humanity?
>>43830795
The mentally manifested object cannot be observed by mental senses of other sentients.
Physical objects interact with the object as if it were real, so long as the object is not observed. Sort of a "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it"" sort of thing. It can make a kinetic shockwave, but if that shockwave is interpreted by a sentient as sound, then the sound itself ceases to exist (likely before the sentient processed the audible phenomena).
So if you have a combustion engine that is soundproofed and in a blackbox, then yes, I suppose it would be an unlimited source of energy. You'd still be limited by distribution through the second law of thermodynamics though. Desert solar energy already can produce more than the world consumption- it just can't transfer it very far beyond its point of origination.
I don't know, I just want to post some of these.
So basically Hawthorne effect?
This is literally quantum physics, its unbelievably broken.
>>43830484
The biggest exploit is probably using it for internal parts of machinery, if we're going with the logic that non-living things can touch it without problem.
For example, you could create a computer or engine fairly easily. The biggest problem is creating outputs for anything you make, but it does mean that any sort of tech problem can be solved by filling it with black boxes that do whatever you need them to.
How are soundproofed rooms, wires, tubes, and cameras being adjudicated?
You could literally destroy an object with this just by creating acidic compounds or causing a persons armor to rust. This is pretty much entropy manipulation for everything that isn't alive
tl'dr yes you can literally break any game with quantum physics
>>43830484
How big can I go and does it's gravity count as something that gets rid of it?
I make devices that manufacture other devices. Instead of an infinite-energy source (which would vanish), I make a device that outputs infinite energy source devices which are not subject to disappearance.
>>43831154
>DAMNIT KIDS! GET OFF THE DAMN MAP!
>>43831141
Note that it's any object you can "imagine".
So you get the problem of concise information. You may not need to necessarily imagine a motherboard in exacting detail, but imagining a black box that will have exactly the same inputs and outputs is actually vastly *more* complex than just imagining the motherboard.
You can say "it's magic" as far as the internal processes go, but in order to get it to function in a machine it needs well defined inputs and outputs. So that's still limited in terms of mechanical complexity.
Not sure if you could genuinely imagine hyper-compact RAM or something to that effect though. At any rate, I don't think its that game breaking to give players replacement parts for repair provided they satisfy a pretty intensive insulation procedure.
>>43831156
Provided you can do so in a soundproof, lightproof sealed environment, yeah I suppose. But you couldn't do it in combat, since the target would observe the effects, negating them.
>>43831147
Elaborate your question, please.
>>43831212
You're thinking dark matter... gravity is weird because its not a property of the object, its a property of the space around it. That's why it exists around an event horizon- it doesn't escape because its not mitigated the same way as electromagnetic energy. Gravitons, if they exist, would mediate your interaction with timespace fields, not the mass-objects that warp them.
I would rule that you CAN sense gravity, as per your sense of balance and kinesthetic proprioception. But is it a property of the object? That gets metaphysically sticky, but I'm leaning towards yes.
>>43831578
what if their sword in is its sheath and you rust it? Or you destroy inner mechanics of any machine. not to mention humans cant see on a fucking quantum level so i don't think observer effect would kick in. Nor can a person literally hear metal eroding like that, because the mere sound would of meant its already done its job
This is quantum mechanic's, human do not perceive in anyway on a quantum level, neither do any fantasy races really.
Is there any reason I couldn't imagine a device that creates other, real, but just as fantastical devices?
Don't bother trying to imagine a supercomputer and hiding it in a black box forever, just imagine a device that makes fantastical supercomputers; you'll only need to hide it for as long as it takes to make the (very real) supercomputer, which will be instantaneously because it's an arbitrarily-powerful manufacturer.
>>43831772
>This is quantum mechanic's
No, it's really not. IRL physics does not alter for human consciousness. Even in the GRW interpretation (the only one in which there is actually a collapsed wave function), "observer" does not strictly mean "human consciousness". Lots of inanimate processes qualify as "observation" from the perspective of a physicist. I know its exciting and complicated, but don't get too excited or overcomplicated.
>>43831836
Again, you'd need well defined parameters about what your black box is to generate. If you want to make a black box which produces "x", and you don't know anything about x's, then you haven't actually conceptualized anything.
It's why you can't tell a computer to write a program that writes programs for you. You have to tell it exactly what kind of program to make, or exactly how to go about writing programs. How to vary its iterated approach with every failed program. How to even identify a failed program.
>>43831578
It doesn't need to be dark matter, a planet or star maybe?
If by dark matter you just mean any matter not giving off light then ok.
OP here. While I may be arguing limitations, I realized I should say that many of these have been excellent ideas and stress tests, which is exactly what I wanted. Thank you /tg/- five star thread! Lets keep it up.
In particular, sabotage, replacement parts, and fuel cells are all excellent applications that make the power more interesting. And dark matter is an interesting problem I'm really not sure what to do with.
Also, to the guy posting fantasy realism- thank you for bumping the thread. Keep posting. And anyone feel free to post other conceptual spins on supernatural powers.
>>43832315
Well, once the planet or star is observed in any way, it would demanifest. I suppose you could destroy uninhabited systems with this, or power a dyson sphere. Hmm... I guess you could use the gravity of an unobserved mass to fling an existing mass onto a collision course. Would require some pretty intense calculations, and would only be useful in a space age which probably has hardkill or softkill deflections. But it's a possibility worth noting.
>>43832419
Speed of light being what it is I inhabited doesn't matter, as the gravity still counts it could end a galaxy's stability with no upper size limit.
Does me seeing it kill the power or only other people? I need to know forsex[\spoiler]
>>43832358
what about objects the thing makes? do those go away?
>>43832902
If the thing generates the matter the objects are made out of, then the objects go away.
If the thing has an input of real matter, and it uses... lets call it "imaginary" energy, to make that real matter into objects of your choice, then the objects persist after the thing is gone.
If you imagined a metal stamp which cut aluminum cans out of sheets of aluminum, provided you actually supply sheets of aluminum, you could create well conceptualized cans. But you have to be able to conceptualize the input and the output. Input is aluminum sheets. Output is cans.
Much harder with electronics, as even most electrical engineers these days don't understand a cell phone start to finish. They typically specialize on one component or another.
>>43832743
I see what you're saying. Retrocontinuity would be required to undo the damage done. Of course the damage is largely caused in part because your conceptualization of the object far away violates the speed of light, assuming the effect is instantaneous.
General Relativity is always far more of a menace than Quantum ever was. I guess I'd have to limit your manifestations to the speed of light, so if you were a lightyear away your doomsday illusion wouldn't take place for another year. Still not sure that would help much though...
Hmm... yeah I might be forced to say that the manifested unobservables have no mass... although they do flagrantly violate conservation of energy. Gotta have some fun afterall.
>>43833082
Can it make people or 'magical' objects with their magic still working? like a genie and the like
>>43830484
I imagine a silent, invisible being which follows my will and will kill my enemies through the use of other objects in the environment in complicated rube-goldberg style ways that will be too unusual for anyone to realise they were caused intentionally.
>>43833082
How would a virus work then when it reproduces?
>>43833393
This is probably moot, as any living being is too psychologically complex for you to imagine. In fact, its actually provable your brain can't fully emulate another brain of equal intellect. A genie, presumably, is of equal or greater intellect. You might be able to fully comprehend a mouse, but only after years of study. You wouldn't need to comprehend the brain per se, though knowing the brain would be a roadmap to knowing the mind. But any psychological property you fail to imagine would render the living entity insufficient.
That's why its moot. If it wasn't moot, I'd have to wonder about whether or not self-realization would demanifest the sentient. The moment it became aware of anything about itself, it would cease to exist. I did say observation by ANY sentient afterall.
>>43833452
Very good question. Is a virus sentient? No. Though Bonnie Bassler's work indicates bacteria at least do have signal processing based on a certain rudimentary smell... but I don't think that means bacteria would demanifest most of your creations. Unless you happened to manifest one of the organic compounds they have a specialized receptor for, it wouldn't be an issue.
In that case, the Virus would work like a nanomachine processor. If you put in actual biomatter... say a petri-dish, then any reproductions made from that would endure. This is assuming you can comprehend the full complexity of the virus, which is possible for some very simple snippets, but doubtful in most cases.
>>43833561
what about magical items?
>>43833747
Good question. It's worth noting I wasn't intending on implementing a genuinely unlimited superpower mechanic onto a D&D system.
Magic items would need to be fully comprehended in terms of inputs and outputs. In D&D this might be summarized easily as a +4 damage bonus as cold. But I would require you to explain the transformation of ordinary matter into the magical item (which would at least require you to be a competent and knowledgeable magical artificer), and would still require any ordinary precursor components, though you might be able to bypass a catalyst- not that any material component is every listed as a catalyst.
You could probably generate a magical effect within the black box though. Like a freezing chamber or something. Combustion black boxes violate conservation of energy positively- there's no reason you couldn't violate it negatively too.
>>43832293
Ok, then just make a device that produces water, and another that makes water disappear, and put a turbine in between them.
>>43833847
Not really any worse than violating conservation of energy via combustion energy, is it?
>>43833835
Could one make a machine that can make a portal gun since portal guns are explained by some bs in the portal games? The portal guns might not work in the "real world" but since we are already limiting this power by you have to have an understanding with it does the portal gun still work since the understanding of how it works in the portal game works even if it wouldn't really work in the real world?
>>43830484
>The catch is that the moment the object is seen, heard, or touched, it vanishes in its entirety.
I would like to wish for Air.
Lots of Air.
Spawn it at the place farthest from anyone who can touch it.
When it first touches someone, there will be a HUGE implosion.
Alternatively, I want to ask for a dark, heavy object to be placed near an Earthcrossing asteroid, when the earthcrosser is obscured by the Sun.
Place it where the asteroid will be slingshotted into earth, please.
Once it's seen, its payload is already on the way.
Unless gravity counts as "touching", at which point literally any object instantly vanishes.
>>43833937
While you might have adequately comprehended the input/output of the object, you haven't comprehended the translation of real matter into a portal gun.
I suppose you could contain the phlebotinum inside the gun, never to b observed. It would be linked to the original instantiation of the machine, so that if the machine that made it were observed, so would all phlebotinum everywhere that it produced. But assuming both the phlebotinum and the machine were preserved, and the phlebotinum had well understood inputs and outputs...
Hmm....
>>43833959
You'd need to seal the air in one place. If you just manifest air, it's going to disperse across the globe VERY quickly. They say every last one of us has breathed at least one atom of Ceasar's dying breath. Laws of probability at a small scale get very weird.
But if you sealed it in a room, yeah, you could set up a vacuum trap. Still at most a trap though.
Gravity was discussed here >>43833157
You're quite right. Slingshotting would be deadly, but galactic destabilization could be obtained by the same reasoning. I think I'll have to rule that the imaginary objects don't have mass and don't exert gravitational force, yet are still affected by local gravity. Violates conservation of energy, but that's an acceptable consequence.
>>43834004
what happens to the object if it is mixed with something that is real?
Like imagine some milk and mix it with other ingredients to make a cake
>>43834199
Cool thought. Obviously, the imagined components vanish, leaving a great imbalance of chemical energy. By guess is a very acidic or basic mush, with immediate exothermic or endothermic consequences depending on which half of the equation was removed.
So I suppose you get a really messy cake grenade.
>>43834289
but how would the components vanish if they formed something new using real material? And -when- will they vanish? Is it when you see the cake or taste it? You don't directly see the components.
>>43834473
You do very much directly see the components. When a molecule of sodium chloride emits a photon, it is directly emmitted. You could split hairs about whether the electron came from the sodium or the chloride, but in practice you'll get at least one photon from each in aggregate. Once any amount of the imaginary substance is observed, it all vanishes instantaneously. I suppose if you literally imagined a single molecule it might be resilient for some time, but inevitably observed to its trivial effect.
At any rate, you're either left with a bunch of metallic sodium- sure to be a good time there- or a bunch of ionic chlorine gas... lots of fun. The trick is making sure the salt is not touched or seen until it reaches your target. That's doable, although it would require elaborate measures.
What about a black box that converts matter into a specific form? Piles of soil, rocks, and other wastes into precious metals and stones would be pretty useful to a low level party. And the process of conversion isn't that complex, it's just energy intensive and bitch and a half to set up.
>>43834542
Ok what part of this cake is the egg?
>>43835349
All the parts that used to be the egg, obviously. (Not who you are replying too.)
This means that all of the chemical processes that required the egg in the PAST do no get undone, but also that all of the MATTER which came from the egg vanishes.
>>43830484
Is an echo of the original sound considered hearing that sound, or the reverberation of the echoing surface? What about a recording? Does seeing a reflection in a mirror count? How about a video feed? What if I feel the object through a layer of latex, never touching it itself, only the things touching it?
Your definition has some kinks to be worked out before it can be said to be internally consistent in our framework of physics.
For example, you are clearly allowing energy leaving the black box to be observed without de-materializing the object, and at the same time ruling that sound, the vibration of air particles - not the object itself - which is caused by a transfer of energy from the object to "real" matter, does constitute enough to remove the object from existence.
>>43835513
How much of the ship of Theseus is still the ship of Theseus?
>>43835007
Short of thermonuclear fission and fusion reactions, I'm not sure how you'd go about turning silicon, lead, and other rubbish into gold.
You can't create matter, but you can violate conservation of energy. Your black box would have to fission and destroy heavy matter or fuse light matter. Either way, you can in principle create and destroy energy to contain that. But wouldn't the result be extremely unstable and radioactive?
I'm uncertain as to how plausible this is...
>>43835626
Echos and reflections count. If feeling the object would require the object to HAVE a tactile property (such as smoothness or softness) then that would demanifest the object. I already decided on recordings- good on you to be the first to ask: recordings detect the object until observed by a sentient. So a security camera recording will show the object and also show it vanish the moment it was first observed by a sentient, with a timestamp on the security footage no doubt. The object is therefore data-manipulable, and reacts to cognition by sentients as a metaphysical hard reality. That much is of course fantasy.
If you wanted to get into hard limits, I'd say something about quantified information in physics. With the proper instrumentation, you could detect the object through otherwise "soundproof" barriers. The key factor is cognition by a sentient, not the instrumentation used to augment that sentient's sensory perception.
Information disappears in noise and chaos. So noise is in fact the masking agent for obscuring the object, visually, audibly, and by all other means. Any instrument which filters noise or boosts signal may bring the information into liminal range of a sentient, thus manifesting it.
Notice I keep saying sentient and not person. A rat can set all this off too.
>>43835643
Depends what one considers to be the ship of Theseus. Is it the physical matter of the ship when it earned its name? That was lost long ago. Is it the ship that Theseus sails? He probably sailed plenty of ships other than his titular ship, and in any case he doesn't sail any mortal ships anymore, he's dead. Is it the idea of the boat that received the name (probably closest to a working definition that matches most people's intuition)? An idea can live on much longer than the man, or the cohesion of the matter involved in the ship at one point in time; it then becomes a matter of strength of claim, both absolute and relative.
As to whether or not you can create two or more ships of Theseus by way of transference, it again is a matter of definition. Does the Ship of Theseus's intrinsic nature come from the events which made it famous, or from our attribution of that nature? Is the intrinsic nature of a thing infinitely divisible, direct and immutable, or infinitely fragile?
Would you care to ask a specific question about the Ship of Theseus problem with regard to this thread's premise, or were you just making a point about your level of education?
>>43835795
So no real answer just snarky questions and an attempt to insult someone about their education.
>>43835513
it has already been stated that anything that the imagined object creates with real matter won't go away. You can't directly see the egg in the cake, it has created a new object of real matter.
>>43835879
No, I provided a pretty rounded answer to the general 'Ship of Theseus' question, and asked if they wanted to move on to the specific. I was pointing out the fact that they were doing the philosophical equivalent of name-dropping, and yes that was an insult, if fitting and not very harsh.
>>43835923
Yes, but it has not merely created a cake out of real ingredients, it itself is a part of the created cake. It's not like the imagined object is an oven and you make the cake out of all real ingredients; the cake has the egg in it, so all the bits that were egg are gone. The effect of the egg during cooking, so long as it doesn't rely on the continued presence of the physical egg particles, can continue to exist.
This means that, for example, any bubbles in the cake created by gasses given off by the cooking egg remain (though they are no longer filled with those gases and may collapse from the force of the vacuum if the constituent matter isn't strong enough); but the binding effect of adding egg to, say, hamburger, may not function after the egg disappears due to some or all of the effect being due to the physical and continued presence of the cooked egg to hold the hamburger together.
>>43835658
You don't have to go full atomic, chemical bonding can get it done, it just takes a shit ton of acids and electricity.
>>43836413
All precious metals are elemental. Gems are easily synthesized, though synthetic gems are easily identifiable for their uniformity, and also considerably less valuable.
To my knowledge acid and electricity will not disrupt strong force bonds. What specifically did you have in mind regarding acids and electricity?
>>43831030
>>43831185
These are very good.
Do you have any more?
>>43835997
People on /tg/ have gotten *really* oversensitive on light jabs that I wouldn't even call actual insults. It's kind of weird actually.
>>43836503
I was thinking adsorption or exclusion purification for specific elements and molecules. After that it would be a matter of crystalization for the metals and a whole mix of processes for differing stones. The only time you would really need the fission/fusion reactions an earlier anon posted would be a lack of suitable raw material. Hell sea water would work with chemical purification. Admittedly fission/fusion would allow a greater return per mass but I don't have the exact atomic alignment of any substance memorized and doubt I could imagine it precise enough for the illusion to work.
>>43837018
It is pretty weird, isn't it? That level of banter is almost flirtatious, really.
>>43832293
Can I make a black box that outputs well defined parameters to feed into the other black box?
>>43830947
>second law of thermodynamics
Why would that limit anything at all?
>>43835997
fair enough of on the ship of thesues part.
But as for the cake bit how does one see the egg when it has been mixed into a new substance? you aren't seeing the egg you are seeing a new creation made from the egg and real parts.
>>43830484
I could imagine freaking everyone out with this ability.
For example, I imagine a bomb within my suitcase over there. I take it to the airport, metal detector goes off, everyone fucking panics, xray shows the whole neighborhood will be leveled then they open the case and there's not a damn thing.
since covering the item made makes it 'ok' to use does this mean someone can just create a knife/gun and cover it in real paint and use it normally and when they need to get rid of it just scratch the paint?
>>43837161
Even the best conductors heat up when electricity passes through them. The longer the distance, the greater the resistance, the greater the heat. Therefore all electricity must be generated locally. Hence why solar works in deserts, but can't be transferred elsewhere.
>>43837104
For the record, that's not OP.
>>43837082
So you mean like filtering metals from mixtures? Yeah I guess that would work. But you'd still be limited by the input. You can't turn just salt and water into gold merely by purification. Or is there something I'm missing?
Synthetic gems and marble I could see though.
>>43837286
Detection through instrumentation would demanifest immediately. But I suppose it would trigger the instrument. But it would register as a blip on most machines.
>>43837511
No, tactile and audio feedback demanifests all matter. This includes tactile feedback of "the bullet impacts the target" assuming the target is sentient. However if you created a real suitcase that loads a real bullet into an imaginary gun, you could get off a single shot and have no murder weapon afterwards.
>>43837125
Please elaborate. The blackbox phlebotinum is a problem I think, but further exploration may yield a solution.
>>43830484
Black holes. I don't think you can even meet the requirements to make it go away.
>>43830484
If I could imagine an object that is immune to these rules, the vanishing rules, would the rules still apply to that object?
>>43835626
How much have you levelled up the ability at the point you're asking?
>>43837780
Levels of ability hadn't been discussed yet, so just trying to find a baseline.
>>43837745
You also can meet the requirement to make it exist, since you can't actually conceptualize the interior. Though you could conceptualize a collision of neutronium resulting in a black hole which then could not be demanifested. I noted before dark matter and other gravitational effects may have to be excluded out.
>>43837777
Dark matter and black holes are the clever responses that fit this bill. But excluding gravitational nonsense, which avoids it via effective cloaking, no, you can't Russel-paradox your way out of the rules.
The effect simply fails in such cases.
>>43837804
I think we're at the point where we need a first draft of the rules. As it stands we know it can't make gravity and mixing doesn't protect any matter we make but other than that nothing is very clear.
>>43837827
I don't see why you can't visualize a mass so dense light can't escape, without filling in all the details. It isn't like you need to know the chemical composition of everything you make or it'd be ridiculous to make anything.
Anyways, if you can contrive a black hole with a mass equal to about a battleship you have a damn good source of energy on your hands.
>>43830484
I create a glass shield around the planet. The glass is specially insulated so that thermal energy doesn't pass through it.
I also create a chip that affixes to my skin, it links to the glass shield and transfer heat energy to spread along my body.
Everyone dies. I can do whatever I want now.
>>43837941
You touch the chip, it disapears
>>43830484
This is stupid; you make a cannon, then fire real cannonballs out of them. Or really powerful railguns.
They only need to exist until the projectile is in the air.
Likewise create infinite power by making hot objects in a steam engine or whatever.
>>43837890
Hawking seemed to indicate that nobody really knows what a black hole is or what it looks like. But as I said, we do know what neutron stars are like, and you can create a black hole by just smashing those together with sufficient energy, so my objection is moot. Bottom line- gravity is a problem, since it isn't truly a property of the object but a property of space itself. Hence why gravity can "escape" the event horizon of a black hole- it isn't moving through any medium, it is simply a property of the background. This foils my scheme.
There are two hard limits I can propose to solve this. 1) Objects created do not exert gravitational force, but are effected by gravitational force. 2) There is a fixed limit on how much mass you can create. Still could create destructive singularities with relatively little mass though, so the former limit is preferred.
>>43837941
Just because a thing is transparent does not mean it is not perceived per se. The glass itself would quickly become visible as ablation created defects, but its an interesting question as to how much a problem transparency poses.
>>43838103
That's not stupid... that's actually really cool. Provided you are technologically savvy enough to fully conceptualize a rail gun, and, most importantly, you have a large enough concealed area to manifest it, I'm actually pretty ok with the idea of a portable magic cruiser class railgun.
As for the unlimited energy steam engine- you'd have to keep putting in new hot objects, but yes, I openly said it violates conservation of energy. It is a feature, not a flaw.
>>43838134
How about material that is similar to Vantablack, I.e. it absorbs 100% of light and doesn't give off reflected radiation?
Does observing the lack of light cause this stuff to despawn? If not you can just slap that coating on anything you make and only worry about sounds it makes.
>>43837841
>>43830484
The rules have been referenced throughout the thread, but for the sake of convenience, I'll summarize them here.
1) You must fully conceptualize a well defined object in order for it to manifest.
1.5) You cannot manifest anything you do not fully comprehend, just as you cannot command a computer to write programs without specifying exactly what programs you desire (which would entail writing the program yourself).
2) The object ceases to exist the moment a sentient creature observes it through sense perception, whether direct or through readings on a measuring instrument or sensory enhancement device of any kind.
2.5) In the case of recordings, say you video taped the object for 7 days. If on the 7th day, you viewed the recording from day 1, the object would cease to exist on the 7th day, but all data recorded until that time would remain, so you could view the object all the way up until the 7th recording, where you could actually watch it vanish as a result of your viewing it.
3) Manifestation defies the conservation of energy. Hot or cold objects can both be used to alter net energy.
4) Manifestations do not exert gravitational force, but are affected by gravitational force. This defies Newton's 3rd law as well as conservation of energy, but only in the instance of gravitational properties of mass.
5) When any piece of the manifested object, no matter how small, is detected- the entirety of the manifestation vanishes instantaneously (at the speed of light).
5.5)This holds true even if the object has been chemically bonded with genuine matter prior to being observed, resulting in chemically unstable remains.
I think that covers it so far. Questions? What else needs clarified?
>>43838185
"sense perception". Most sentients can sense pressures and the like. Will items vanish from being heard through a floor? There's no real way to muffle things entirely. Would second hand sensations (eg feeling a room shake because an illusory machine passed by) make it vanish?
Would simple deduction make it go poof without direct observation?
>>43838185
Ah, an important clarification on Rule 2.
Observation is defined as information in physics. Observation can therefore only be obscured by "noise" jamming "signal". In the case of tactile jamming, if any tactile properties of the manifested object can be determined through its coating, the object will demanifest. If any audible phonons can be detected, it will demanifest. Sufficiently advanced instrumentation will effectively guarantee demanifestation. However unaided sense perception will likely be foiled by simple means.
>>43838166
Vantablack isn't 100% absorption. Its close, but still only 99.9%. Meaning if you covered the earth in it, some light would be detected and demanifest the entire sphere relatively quickly. As an object covering, it would suffice for optical concealment, though audio and tactile concealment would be tricky. A cardboard box, I should note, also suffices for optical concealment.
>>43838230
Sufficiently LIKE vantablack, I said. But with 100% efficiency as imagined by YOU.
>>43838281
Fair enough. In an entirely dark room, you wouldn't be able to get rid of it without touching it. However if you had a flashlight or, ideally, a laser you could still see the black by noting that your light ends.
>>43838217
If by deduction you mean signal detection from noise, then maybe. But there would need to be some observational link. Vibrations through a floor would suffice, though a floor that vibrates on its own or from other sources would have enough noise to mask the effect.
>>43838068
If we work off that logic, than anything you create is destroyed before coming to fruition. You have to perceive the object to make it, and once it's there, you know it's there. Poof, someone perceived it.
>>43838107
It doesn't technically have to be glass, just make it metal, but bend light.
You can break this easily if you take the fact that you do not have to create the effect. If there's a ball already in play, you just have to get it moving. Volcano? Throw shit into it so that it'll erupt. Clouds above? Make that shit into a thunderstorm. Tons and tons of rock above a city? Destroy it with some magical tool you can imagine.
>>43838313
So, by inference since sound is just movement of air molecules no sound will make these things poof?
Oh good you can just throw a blanket over it or a tarp and that's that.
>>43830484
I create a black hole.
It's not visible unless you are moving extremely fast. You don't hear or see it. You don't touch it. It crushes you with it's gravitational density.
>>43838185
Does the creater count for rule 2?
>>43838107
Instead of one large flat plane, I create panels then. Linked together by yet more manifestations. All of them bending light.
If you are a wizard, you can damn well gain the knowledge on how to do so.
And if it's up high enough people will not notice it. They won't even know it's there. If they do notice, a small portion vanishes, no big deal.
Also, I create a non-sentient versions of myself who's sole purpose is to recreate the barriers should they become noticed.
>>43838384
Yes
>>43838325
No. There's a kinetic signal moving through the air, which is merely a medium. Information is a well defined quantity in physics.
>>43838321
You necessarily must create the object remotely, behind a veil of some sort to hide it from yourself. Merely "knowing" it is there is not the same as perceiving it to be there. Perception requires sensation, which is the reception of a signal from the environment.
Environmental catastrophes are a very interesting point however. Avalanches in particular seem like a very plausible application. We trigger them intentionally by burying dynamite in snow- why not just imagine dynamite beneath some mountain boulders to trigger a rockslide?
Come to think of it, that sounds like a remarkably effective terrorist tactic that I have never heard implemented. Must be more difficult than it sounds...
>>43838432
I create a robot in a box, it's connected to me ethereally. I buy 100 scrolls of Cure Light Wounds, and place them in the box. I instruct the robot to heal me whenever I will it to through the ethereal connection.
If we are calling this magic, then we are crippled from the start. Magic does not exist, and contrary to popular belief, the wizard can explain his spells. The whole "It's magic, I ain't gotta explain shit" is a cop-out, when really, all a wizard does is study power-structures and how to manipulate the energy of his surroundings.
That said, then through the magic science of understanding, we can most likely create anything that modern day people can create. Because even if we don't have the knowledge of how to do so, we can get that easily via "magic."
Alternatively, I just create robots capable of assembling doomsday devices, like atomic bombs.
Or, I start draining the ocean into the Plane of air with an invisible pump. Which technically can be a robot, but I'm not going to be mean like that.
I create an object capable of making heavy fog that blocks out all light.
I stand on an air balloon and without looking down, I drop an object into the ocean big enough to cause killer waves.
I create nuclear fusion in a box and then teleport as it explodes like an actual bomb.
Hell, I throw gigantic radioactive stones throughout the ocean and kill everything.
