New Civilizations ( OOC, Always Open, Reboot )

[Plzen]

That moment when you have been stuck to England (doing nothing) so long that you'd prefer to be stationed on the border of the northern commies...

The northern what now.

[Holy Tedalonia]

That moment when you have been stuck to England (doing nothing) so long that you'd prefer to be stationed on the border of the northern commies...

The northern what now.

The nickname, Edward is probably going to give the Commonwealth folk in the future.

[Bortslovakia]

The northern what now.

The nickname, Edward is probably going to give the Commonwealth folk in the future.

I mean, it works. Commonwealth-Commies.

I support this. The ensuing shenanigans when Reatra discovers us will be hilarious.

[Joohan]

Take the atom bomb for example. Just to even begin comprehending the math and science which go into building an atomic bomb, we will pretty much have to reinvent the very foundations of math and science entirely from scratch - and wait till the point were scientists and mathematicians are able to devise methods of calculating quantum and nuclear physics.

Not really. We, the authors, know much of the science, and don't need to be able to replicate the steps of scientific inquiry and reasoning that led to the discovery of that science. What we need is the necessary engineering genius required to put our science into action, and while that in itself is challenging it's not as challenging as rediscovering nuclear physics from scratch.[/quote]

I should say not. We only posses extremely vague concepts of how higher technology works - such as the atom bomb. We understand the basic idea of how an atomic bomb works, but this doesn't in any way translate to us being able to recreate it. Just as an example, do you know how to distill hard water? No? Do you know what even water is? Of course not - but it is an essential aspect in the creation of building an atomic bomb. An essential process which you are unaware of, and in it by itself took eon's to discover. There are tens of thousands of similar such discoveries needed to create an atom bomb, and which all require preceding discovers for us to even be made aware of them! We, as a civilization, can specialize in only a couple of relatively basic technologies - but more complex things require vastly more disparate fields of fore hand knowledge. How are you going to build a car if you don't know what a threaded screw is?

I think the most advanced thing any of us has introduced is extremely basic geometry.

Calculus! It's so fundamental to so much of the natural sciences and engineering, why not teach it?[/quote]

Why and how? I get that calculus is essential for a lot of science and engineering... but is it essential right now? I mean, when is any government researcher or scribe going to ever need to know calculus when helping to design new ship hulls or when studying the differences in soil deposits? In our current age, anything outside the four essentials, geometry, and maybe graphing is pretty useless.

Plus, how? Getting modern people up to such a speed that they can understand calculus is a difficult one, and which even not everyone does get to. That's with modern resources at our disposal, advanced and universal education systems, a dedicated teaching staff, and 5,000 years of proven data and mathematical tradition. I don't think one guy or gal who learned it a bit in high school or the Gen Ed's in college would be able to teach it to a bunch of cavemen - while also simultaneously leading an entire civilization and inventing a ridiculous amount of stuff as is.

[UniversalCommons]

Take the atom bomb for example. Just to even begin comprehending the math and science which go into building an atomic bomb, we will pretty much have to reinvent the very foundations of math and science entirely from scratch - and wait till the point were scientists and mathematicians are able to devise methods of calculating quantum and nuclear physics.

Not really. We, the authors, know much of the science, and don't need to be able to replicate the steps of scientific inquiry and reasoning that led to the discovery of that science. What we need is the necessary engineering genius required to put our science into action, and while that in itself is challenging it's not as challenging as rediscovering nuclear physics from scratch.

I should say not. We only posses extremely vague concepts of how higher technology works - such as the atom bomb. We understand the basic idea of how an atomic bomb works, but this doesn't in any way translate to us being able to recreate it. Just as an example, do you know how to distill hard water? No? Do you know what even water is? Of course not - but it is an essential aspect in the creation of building an atomic bomb. An essential process which you are unaware of, and in it by itself took eon's to discover. There are tens of thousands of similar such discoveries needed to create an atom bomb, and which all require preceding discovers for us to even be made aware of them! We, as a civilization, can specialize in only a couple of relatively basic technologies - but more complex things require vastly more disparate fields of fore hand knowledge. How are you going to build a car if you don't know what a threaded screw is?

I think the most advanced thing any of us has introduced is extremely basic geometry.

Calculus! It's so fundamental to so much of the natural sciences and engineering, why not teach it?[/quote]

Why and how? I get that calculus is essential for a lot of science and engineering... but is it essential right now? I mean, when is any government researcher or scribe going to ever need to know calculus when helping to design new ship hulls or when studying the differences in soil deposits? In our current age, anything outside the four essentials, geometry, and maybe graphing is pretty useless.

Plus, how? Getting modern people up to such a speed that they can understand calculus is a difficult one, and which even not everyone does get to. That's with modern resources at our disposal, advanced and universal education systems, a dedicated teaching staff, and 5,000 years of proven data and mathematical tradition. I don't think one guy or gal who learned it a bit in high school or the Gen Ed's in college would be able to teach it to a bunch of cavemen - while also simultaneously leading an entire civilization and inventing a ridiculous amount of stuff as is.[/quote]

On the contrary, both the Nestos League and The Imperium of Man have started to introduce the basic concept of studying nature in the sense that we can observe the world and systematically observe things. We write things down and observe things. While the Imperium of Man has mainly relied on his own knowledge and passed it on, The Nestos League has compiled the existing knowledge of the Mesopotamians and Egyptians naming it natural science and encouraging people to systematize it. Thus the existing knowledge of medicine, astronomy, math, and other things has been written down.
The first thing which was truly "scientific" that was introduced by Victor Spear was plant breeding from gardening. Recessive and dominant traits. This has helped us with our food supply and animal breeding.

The Imperium of Man has worked a lot more with creating scientific experiments and tests while the Nestos League has created a system of organization and observation which leads to discoveries. His focus is more on the hard sciences.

As a civilization we can create methods for systematic observation of nature-- the lens, the notebook, basic logic-- this was part of your introductory sciecne courses, the list, the alphabet, recipes, measuring devices, and similar things. We can also try and introduce the experimental method in the sense we write things down and repeat things in the same sequences, either with experiments or formulas.

When we were in high school, we learned the experimental method, the ability to test things in a logical sequence.

All of us had a basic education through at least high school which includes up to geometry with a bit of trigronometry and statistics. We also have had your basic science experiments and taken some things like chemistry, biology, and geology. Many of us have also enjoyed gardening or other science hobbies.

Also, if we worked in a place with other people whether or not we were managers, we learned about organizational structures and managing things for the future.

We could impart basic measurements, writing things down, repeated observation and a lot of the basic things to the first generation. It is the second generation that would start to be more able to absorb things with a description of methods. Each generation would change and be more able to follow what we are doing. We are at the second generation right now. I would think it would take four generations before things really started to heat up and there would be a large group of people who would be able to surpass us easily because the methods of observation, repetition, experimentation, and oganization were understood. Right now, we would have a handful of very smart followers who helped us. It is expanding this handful to a more general group that would be hard.

It would have to be planned systematically. We would absorb the methods which were used by Egypt and Mesopotamia and adapt them for the first generation. Start the process of organizing and inculcating ideas in the second generation. Pick out the most able to spread the ideas in the third and encourage them. Expand many of these ideas into the general population in the fourth, etc.

[Cainesland]

I think the current level of formal mathematics being taught in Crimea, that has been mentioned in the IC, is the multiplication table.

[Joohan]

On the contrary, both the Nestos League and The Imperium of Man have started to introduce the basic concept of studying nature in the sense that we can observe the world and systematically observe things. We write things down and observe things.

Every single civilization currently in the world does this though - it's not unique to either the league or imperium. The Scientific method itself has been known for eon's, it was just that only recently was it explicitly written down and named. Even completely illiterate cavemen understand that they are able to learn new things if they just simply view them. Putting a name to this process does not somehow make the system more efficient - it's simply intuitive.

[Ralnis]

Sorry that I haven't been posting. This weekend will have the post up hopefully.

[Joohan]

Sorry that I haven't been posting. This weekend will have the post up hopefully.

Good to here, looking forward to see how you deal with the sumerian situation

[UniversalCommons]

On the contrary, both the Nestos League and The Imperium of Man have started to introduce the basic concept of studying nature in the sense that we can observe the world and systematically observe things. We write things down and observe things.

Every single civilization currently in the world does this though - it's not unique to either the league or imperium. The Scientific method itself has been known for eon's, it was just that only recently was it explicitly written down and named. Even completely illiterate cavemen understand that they are able to learn new things if they just simply view them. Putting a name to this process does not somehow make the system more efficient - it's simply intuitive.

However, there is a break when it ceases to be a mythological process, but a process which comes from nature. You start talking about how the gods created rules for nature, and these rules are universal. The first real example of this goes back to Mesopotamia which doctors observing medical symptoms then prescribing cures. There was a doctor for the spirits, the Asipu, and a doctor for the body, the Apu. It is these kind of steps which change things. The same follows in calling the scrolls of mathematics methods of doing things. Specifically labeling and calling them something like a proof or hypothesis. Systematizing knowledge so it can be recreated and improved upon. Stating there are laws on how nature works.

It is putting a name to things that creates the first science. Thales is considered the father of science because he called a mathematical formula a proof. He also is attributed to be the first to create non-supernatural reasons for things happening. From then on mathematics could be turned systematically into proofs as well as other discoveries. They get recorded systematically and built upon creating a chain of discovery.

There was no interest in collecting this knowledge in a systematic way until much later with the idea of "natural philosophy" or philosophy about how the natural world works.

[Joohan]

Every single civilization currently in the world does this though - it's not unique to either the league or imperium. The Scientific method itself has been known for eon's, it was just that only recently was it explicitly written down and named. Even completely illiterate cavemen understand that they are able to learn new things if they just simply view them. Putting a name to this process does not somehow make the system more efficient - it's simply intuitive.

However, there is a break when it ceases to be a mythological process, but a process which comes from nature. You start talking about how the gods created rules for nature, and these rules are universal. The first real example of this goes back to Mesopotamia which doctors observing medical symptoms then prescribing cures. There was a doctor for the spirits, the Asipu, and a doctor for the body, the Apu. It is these kind of steps which change things. The same follows in calling the scrolls of mathematics methods of doing things. Specifically labeling and calling them something like a proof or hypothesis. Systematizing knowledge so it can be recreated and improved upon. Stating there are laws on how nature works.

It is putting a name to things that creates the first science. Thales is considered the father of science because he called a mathematical formula a proof. He also is attributed to be the first to create non-supernatural reasons for things happening. From then on mathematics could be turned systematically into proofs as well as other discoveries. They get recorded systematically and built upon creating a chain of discovery.

There was no interest in collecting this knowledge in a systematic way until much later with the idea of "natural philosophy" or philosophy about how the natural world works.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. You are saying that, because you put a name to the thing which everybody already instinctively understood and did intuitively that you've some how broken a perception that you've somehow broken a mythological perception of the world. But people believing that the gods put laws upon the universe or some more chaotic forces changes literally nothing - because they observe these things in the exact same way regardless. People have been collecting and analyzing information since the very beginning of time - Thale putting a name to one of these process's did not in any way revolutionize this process, he just found a way to better summarize the process already known by literally every single human who'd ever lived.

There are certainly some things which have helped upon this process that we authors have introduced: written language, libraries, education systems, bureaucracy, etc. But just naming an intuition will not, in itself, make said intuition anymore efficient. People are still fantastic at recognizing patterns, making groups, deduction, and inference. There is no difference between a Nestos scholar's studies and that of a Sumerian Scribe - aside from the Nestosian maybe having a few more words to describe the exact process he is doing.

[UniversalCommons]

However, there is a break when it ceases to be a mythological process, but a process which comes from nature. You start talking about how the gods created rules for nature, and these rules are universal. The first real example of this goes back to Mesopotamia which doctors observing medical symptoms then prescribing cures. There was a doctor for the spirits, the Asipu, and a doctor for the body, the Apu. It is these kind of steps which change things. The same follows in calling the scrolls of mathematics methods of doing things. Specifically labeling and calling them something like a proof or hypothesis. Systematizing knowledge so it can be recreated and improved upon. Stating there are laws on how nature works.

It is putting a name to things that creates the first science. Thales is considered the father of science because he called a mathematical formula a proof. He also is attributed to be the first to create non-supernatural reasons for things happening. From then on mathematics could be turned systematically into proofs as well as other discoveries. They get recorded systematically and built upon creating a chain of discovery.

Actually, you are wrong about that. A Nestosian scholar has a way to systematize knowledge which the Sumerian does not have. There was no classification scheme in Sumeria, there were no lists and no attempts to define words or meanings,

There was no interest in collecting this knowledge in a systematic way until much later with the idea of "natural philosophy" or philosophy about how the natural world works.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. You are saying that, because you put a name to the thing which everybody already instinctively understood and did intuitively that you've some how broken a perception that you've somehow broken a mythological perception of the world. But people believing that the gods put laws upon the universe or some more chaotic forces changes literally nothing - because they observe these things in the exact same way regardless. People have been collecting and analyzing information since the very beginning of time - Thale putting a name to one of these process's did not in any way revolutionize this process, he just found a way to better summarize the process already known by literally every single human who'd ever lived.

There are certainly some things which have helped upon this process that we authors have introduced: written language, libraries, education systems, bureaucracy, etc. But just naming an intuition will not, in itself, make said intuition anymore efficient. People are still fantastic at recognizing patterns, making groups, deduction, and inference. There is no difference between a Nestos scholar's studies and that of a Sumerian Scribe - aside from the Nestosian maybe having a few more words to describe the exact process he is doing.

There is a difference in a number of ways, the early Sumerian scholar does not have a classification scheme, he has a list without definition. He also has alphabetization which the Sumerians have not developed yet. He has a series of layers of organization which the Sumerian scholar did not have. It is the difference between being able to create an Encyclopedia or Dictionary and a list of words. There are multiple layers of organization which are laid over what the Sumerian scholar has initially. He also has arabic numberals which are easier to manipulate.

It does revolutionize the process because the process becomes additive. A proof is statement of truth that is repetitive. There are others that knew it before, but they did create an additive consistent method. You use deductive reasoning, creating steps along the way which can be repeated and used in other mathematics.

Yang Hui says it perfectly. The men of old changed the name of their methods from problem to problem, so that as no specific explanation was given, there is no way of telling their theoretical origin or basis.

By repeating the same explanation, self-evident truth, over and over you build on that explanation. You create a basis for the next step. First one proof, then the next proof. The next person can build on the previous persons activities in an organized fashioned based on self-evident truths. It is an organized methodology.

It is fundamentally about organization, methodology, and logic. Systems of thinking.

[Ralnis]

Sorry that I haven't been posting. This weekend will have the post up hopefully.

Good to here, looking forward to see how you deal with the sumerian situation

Thinking of having this be the development of an all-volunteer force and maybe one of the first or the first special forces in the world that can handle more black ops situations then just having spies and elite forces that are part of a mainstay army. Since this can enlarge the Sumerian Illuminati and be able to call upon their own soldiers that can fight in the shadows and handle other duties when the enemy strikes them or help them secure their interest around the region and world later on.

[Joohan]

I don't know what you are trying to say here. You are saying that, because you put a name to the thing which everybody already instinctively understood and did intuitively that you've some how broken a perception that you've somehow broken a mythological perception of the world. But people believing that the gods put laws upon the universe or some more chaotic forces changes literally nothing - because they observe these things in the exact same way regardless. People have been collecting and analyzing information since the very beginning of time - Thale putting a name to one of these process's did not in any way revolutionize this process, he just found a way to better summarize the process already known by literally every single human who'd ever lived.

There are certainly some things which have helped upon this process that we authors have introduced: written language, libraries, education systems, bureaucracy, etc. But just naming an intuition will not, in itself, make said intuition anymore efficient. People are still fantastic at recognizing patterns, making groups, deduction, and inference. There is no difference between a Nestos scholar's studies and that of a Sumerian Scribe - aside from the Nestosian maybe having a few more words to describe the exact process he is doing.

There is a difference in a number of ways, the early Sumerian scholar does not have a classification scheme, he has a list without definition. He also has alphabetization which the Sumerians have not developed yet. He has a series of layers of organization which the Sumerian scholar did not have. It is the difference between being able to create an Encyclopedia or Dictionary and a list of words. There are multiple layers of organization which are laid over what the Sumerian scholar has initially. He also has arabic numberals which are easier to manipulate.

Everybody has a classification scheme. What people chose to classify a piece of information by is totally dependent upon what they are studying, and the piece of information's relationship to the subject. That isn't a new, or even revolutionary way of thinking or ordering. What good is alphabetization when dictionaries and mass literacy don't exist? If you must look up the meaning of an unknown word, then odds are is that you will never use that word when speaking to your very select few literate colleagues, who all would have received the exact same education as you ( what with limited education ).[/quote]

It does revolutionize the process because the process becomes additive. A proof is statement of truth that is repetitive. There are others that knew it before, but they did create an additive consistent method. You use deductive reasoning, creating steps along the way which can be repeated and used in other mathematics.

You are just repeating how people learn things - a process literally known to every human who has ever existed.

It is fundamentally about organization, methodology, and logic. Systems of thinking.

I really don't see anything revolutionary or beneficial about the explanations you have given. It's not adding to how people think, or even to how they organize, it's just a long winded resuscitation of what everybody already knows and has been doing since forever.

[Joohan]

Good to here, looking forward to see how you deal with the sumerian situation

Thinking of having this be the development of an all-volunteer force and maybe one of the first or the first special forces in the world that can handle more black ops situations then just having spies and elite forces that are part of a mainstay army.

Scout-Elite from the bushes: * hmm *, casuals...

[Bortslovakia]

However, there is a break when it ceases to be a mythological process, but a process which comes from nature. You start talking about how the gods created rules for nature, and these rules are universal. The first real example of this goes back to Mesopotamia which doctors observing medical symptoms then prescribing cures. There was a doctor for the spirits, the Asipu, and a doctor for the body, the Apu. It is these kind of steps which change things. The same follows in calling the scrolls of mathematics methods of doing things. Specifically labeling and calling them something like a proof or hypothesis. Systematizing knowledge so it can be recreated and improved upon. Stating there are laws on how nature works.

It is putting a name to things that creates the first science. Thales is considered the father of science because he called a mathematical formula a proof. He also is attributed to be the first to create non-supernatural reasons for things happening. From then on mathematics could be turned systematically into proofs as well as other discoveries. They get recorded systematically and built upon creating a chain of discovery.

There was no interest in collecting this knowledge in a systematic way until much later with the idea of "natural philosophy" or philosophy about how the natural world works.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. You are saying that, because you put a name to the thing which everybody already instinctively understood and did intuitively that you've some how broken a perception that you've somehow broken a mythological perception of the world. But people believing that the gods put laws upon the universe or some more chaotic forces changes literally nothing - because they observe these things in the exact same way regardless. People have been collecting and analyzing information since the very beginning of time - Thale putting a name to one of these process's did not in any way revolutionize this process, he just found a way to better summarize the process already known by literally every single human who'd ever lived.

There are certainly some things which have helped upon this process that we authors have introduced: written language, libraries, education systems, bureaucracy, etc. But just naming an intuition will not, in itself, make said intuition anymore efficient. People are still fantastic at recognizing patterns, making groups, deduction, and inference. There is no difference between a Nestos scholar's studies and that of a Sumerian Scribe - aside from the Nestosian maybe having a few more words to describe the exact process he is doing.

Mind you, there is something to be said for standardization. Humanity is more productive as a collective, and cataloguing knowledge is half the battle of spreading it. A Sumerian scribe may reach the same conclusions on issue X as a Nestos scholar, but you can be damn sure the scholar is going to have an easier time with peer review and distribution than the scribe. We often forget how important putting a name to something actually is. Whether it be citing a book, or Thale arbitrarily defining what constitutes a proof, "summarization" as you call it is absolutely necessary to building upon knowledge in a cohesive manner. Can you imagine how much it would suck to constantly have to refer to a branch of philosophy as "The fundamental principle of an abstract, ill defined state of being" in a treatise instead of just saying metaphysics?

Conveying complex ideas is nearly impossible without creating or using specific terminology. Doesn't matter how intuitive an idea is if you can't define it to reach the next, slightly less intuitive conclusion.

Mind you, the fundamental action of defining concepts is intuitive itself. Just requires a bit more work when you make your way up the ladder in terms of complexity. I think that's what Commons is getting at.

[Joohan]

I don't know what you are trying to say here. You are saying that, because you put a name to the thing which everybody already instinctively understood and did intuitively that you've some how broken a perception that you've somehow broken a mythological perception of the world. But people believing that the gods put laws upon the universe or some more chaotic forces changes literally nothing - because they observe these things in the exact same way regardless. People have been collecting and analyzing information since the very beginning of time - Thale putting a name to one of these process's did not in any way revolutionize this process, he just found a way to better summarize the process already known by literally every single human who'd ever lived.

There are certainly some things which have helped upon this process that we authors have introduced: written language, libraries, education systems, bureaucracy, etc. But just naming an intuition will not, in itself, make said intuition anymore efficient. People are still fantastic at recognizing patterns, making groups, deduction, and inference. There is no difference between a Nestos scholar's studies and that of a Sumerian Scribe - aside from the Nestosian maybe having a few more words to describe the exact process he is doing.

Mind you, there is something to be said for standardization. Humanity is more productive as a collective, and cataloguing knowledge is half the battle of spreading it. A Sumerian scribe may reach the same conclusions on issue X as a Nestos scholar, but you can be damn sure the scholar is going to have an easier time with peer review and distribution than the scribe. We often forget how important putting a name to something actually is. Whether it be citing a book, or Thale arbitrarily defining what constitutes a proof, "summarization" as you call it is absolutely necessary to building upon knowledge in a cohesive manner. Can you imagine how much it would suck to constantly have to refer to a branch of philosophy as "The fundamental principle of an abstract, ill defined state of being" in a treatise instead of just saying metaphysics?

Conveying complex ideas is nearly impossible without creating or using specific terminology. Doesn't matter how intuitive an idea is if you can't define it to reach the next, slightly less intuitive conclusion.

Mind you, the fundamental action of defining concepts is intuitive itself. Just requires a bit more work when you make your way up the ladder in terms of complexity. I think that's what Commons is getting at.

Makes things easier, sure, but Commons is trying to make it sound like a civilization just has a sudden scientific revolution simply because they now have a name for the thing they were already doing. A big reason, for how he justifies having like 10% of his nation all just be seamlessly brilliant Renaissance men and inventors.

I agree that standardization certainly helps out when trying to pool information, as well as cataloging, but with the rise of civilization, these are just things that state's do regardless of having a name for them. An accant doesn't need to be told why observing and recording details is important, it is self evident. He is an accant, i.e. an accountant. Just because the Nestoian's have chosen to give a long winded explanation to the self evident act of observation, doesn't some how give them any edge or insight.

[Bortslovakia]

Mind you, there is something to be said for standardization. Humanity is more productive as a collective, and cataloguing knowledge is half the battle of spreading it. A Sumerian scribe may reach the same conclusions on issue X as a Nestos scholar, but you can be damn sure the scholar is going to have an easier time with peer review and distribution than the scribe. We often forget how important putting a name to something actually is. Whether it be citing a book, or Thale arbitrarily defining what constitutes a proof, "summarization" as you call it is absolutely necessary to building upon knowledge in a cohesive manner. Can you imagine how much it would suck to constantly have to refer to a branch of philosophy as "The fundamental principle of an abstract, ill defined state of being" in a treatise instead of just saying metaphysics?

Conveying complex ideas is nearly impossible without creating or using specific terminology. Doesn't matter how intuitive an idea is if you can't define it to reach the next, slightly less intuitive conclusion.

Mind you, the fundamental action of defining concepts is intuitive itself. Just requires a bit more work when you make your way up the ladder in terms of complexity. I think that's what Commons is getting at.

Makes things easier, sure, but Commons is trying to make it sound like a civilization just has a sudden scientific revolution simply because they now have a name for the thing they were already doing. A big reason, for how he justifies having like 10% of his nation all just be seamlessly brilliant Renaissance men and inventors.

I agree that standardization certainly helps out when trying to pool information, as well as cataloging, but with the rise of civilization, these are just things that state's do regardless of having a name for them. An accant doesn't need to be told why observing and recording details is important, it is self evident. He is an accant, i.e. an accountant. Just because the Nestoian's have chosen to give a long winded explanation to the self evident act of observation, doesn't some how give them any edge or insight.

Well it depends really. If that long winded explanation is geared towards a specific goal, you might see a noticable improvement in field work. If it's general knowledge, that's a different story obviously, but if you're, say, trying to prove that reality is more than our general observations (IE prove that fucker Berkeley wrong), the correct tools do indeed involve almost exclusive terminology.

Doesn't mean your nation will have 10,000 Humes ready to change the world, but you may just answer some very specific, very difficult questions.

[UniversalCommons]

There are other methods as well which go with this that are geared towards technology. The first is "blue sky thinking" or thinking without limits. There is also visualization focused on making things. There is also brainstorming. There is also the use of journals. Victor Nemtsov has used all of these things.

There are some other methods like design thinking which I would not do. I have a basic idea of it, but not enough to implement it well.

[G-Tech Corporation]

There are other methods as well which go with this that are geared towards technology. The first is "blue sky thinking" or thinking without limits. There is also visualization focused on making things. There is also brainstorming. There is also the use of journals. Victor Nemtsov has used all of these things.

There are some other methods like design thinking which I would not do. I have a basic idea of it, but not enough to implement it well.

Well, I wouldn't say those are broadly implemented in the Imperium. Realistically, the most important thing any Author can do is guide the technological development of the broad masses of wise men, artisans, and engineers, through clarifying the accuracy of their intuitive leaps and foundational assumptions - ensuring ideas like caloric, heliocentrism, and the like don't take root. And, crucially, providing the correct framework of assumptions and axioms for progress directly. Concepts like atomicism, the ideal gas laws, metal crystallography, genetics, geographic projection, work, and buoyancy are all revolutionary, and integral to advancements in their relative fields.

[Ralnis]

Thinking of having this be the development of an all-volunteer force and maybe one of the first or the first special forces in the world that can handle more black ops situations then just having spies and elite forces that are part of a mainstay army.

Scout-Elite from the bushes: * hmm *, casuals...

Didn't say it was going to be amazing, just something that Uruk didn't expect so much.

[Bortslovakia]

There are other methods as well which go with this that are geared towards technology. The first is "blue sky thinking" or thinking without limits. There is also visualization focused on making things. There is also brainstorming. There is also the use of journals. Victor Nemtsov has used all of these things.

There are some other methods like design thinking which I would not do. I have a basic idea of it, but not enough to implement it well.

Well, I wouldn't say those are broadly implemented in the Imperium. Realistically, the most important thing any Author can do is guide the technological development of the broad masses of wise men, artisans, and engineers, through clarifying the accuracy of their intuitive leaps and foundational assumptions - ensuring ideas like caloric, heliocentrism, and the like don't take root. And, crucially, providing the correct framework of assumptions and axioms for progress directly. Concepts like atomicism, the ideal gas laws, metal crystallography, genetics, geographic projection, work, and buoyancy are all revolutionary, and integral to advancements in their relative fields.

Heliocentrism? So are Imperial astronomers geocentrists?

[G-Tech Corporation]

Well, I wouldn't say those are broadly implemented in the Imperium. Realistically, the most important thing any Author can do is guide the technological development of the broad masses of wise men, artisans, and engineers, through clarifying the accuracy of their intuitive leaps and foundational assumptions - ensuring ideas like caloric, heliocentrism, and the like don't take root. And, crucially, providing the correct framework of assumptions and axioms for progress directly. Concepts like atomicism, the ideal gas laws, metal crystallography, genetics, geographic projection, work, and buoyancy are all revolutionary, and integral to advancements in their relative fields.

Heliocentrism? So are Imperial astronomers geocentrists?

Insofar as they exist, aye. I'd hesitate to say any are actually astronomers, per se, given the lack of large scale optics and the need for specialization, but those with the knowledge from Mara would be.

[Joohan]

Well, I wouldn't say those are broadly implemented in the Imperium. Realistically, the most important thing any Author can do is guide the technological development of the broad masses of wise men, artisans, and engineers, through clarifying the accuracy of their intuitive leaps and foundational assumptions - ensuring ideas like caloric, heliocentrism, and the like don't take root. And, crucially, providing the correct framework of assumptions and axioms for progress directly. Concepts like atomicism, the ideal gas laws, metal crystallography, genetics, geographic projection, work, and buoyancy are all revolutionary, and integral to advancements in their relative fields.

Heliocentrism? So are Imperial astronomers geocentrists?

Don't be silly, they're Viktorcentrist! I mean, they based the calendar on him after all.

[Bortslovakia]

Heliocentrism? So are Imperial astronomers geocentrists?

Insofar as they exist, aye. I'd hesitate to say any are actually astronomers, per se, given the lack of large scale optics and the need for specialization, but those with the knowledge from Mara would be.

So why would an author be encouraging geocentrism exactly?