0
$\begingroup$

"However, King Crimson has already seen through it. Your movements in the future. The trajectory of your movements in the future."

"No matter who you may be, everyone goes through their ups and downs. You succeed, and you fail. But if you happen to find the pitfall known as the future that's right in front of you and manage to not fall in, you will never experience a setback in your life. You will remain in your best condition. Don't you think so?"

-Boss, JoJo part 5

Epitaph (though everyone calls it angry forehead, Sir Nighteye, or foresight for some reason) is a spell that allows the caster to give anyone the power to see three seconds into the future (reliably) and further, unreliably. Epitaph's future isn't immutable, in fact, it constantly recalculates and updates its premonitions as new data becomes available. The range is generally what the target can percieve (see, hear, touch).

Now, I do have super technology (full-fledged molecular nanotechnology, thank the ribosomes and the enzymes) and magic is supposed to be just super technology. However, I'm struggling to figure out how foresight could work. It's a general rule that if there's some kind of an ancient network or system (like satelites), it's inaccessible to ordinary people, courtesy of the system administrator and no one can just build a new Internet, especially not because of an obscure 9th level spell.

How could foresight work?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Science-based, seriously? From a science-based point of view it does not work; those casters which pretend to give somebody the ability to predict ahead of time what will be ther result of a pair of dice which will be thrown two seconds from now (or even if the dice will be thrown two seconds from now) are frauds, cheats and crooks. There are very good fundamental reasons why it cannot possibly work. $\endgroup$
    – AlexP
    Nov 18 '19 at 19:25
3
$\begingroup$

Predictions can just be an analysis of the actions going on coupled with deep historical knowledge. That would be relatively self-contained.

If you took physical actions. If you had the knowledge about the physical properties of everything in your sensory range, understanding of physics, and the ability to do real-time calculations, you could pretty much get a predictable answer to (almost) any physical action going on. Not to mention, physics doesn't really change that often so it may be static data.

Adding in observations of biological folks, both statistics (certain people have a tendency to pick the same thing, see the Odd Squad episode about probabilities and rock/paper/scissors) and inferrable (injuries will reduce the probably space of actions, apparent religious beliefs, observed tells), then you can merge that with the physics to get a pretty good idea of how people are going to react and the results of those actions.

Continual observations would just let you update information on the fly to handle the butterfly effects/unknown initial conditions.

Basically, the prediction scenes in the Sherlock movies and how they play with that with the sequel movie.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The person uses science to see into the future.

More correctly, highly specialized eye implants are inserted (basically, the eyes are replaced) and the news eyes possess the ability to see not in three dimension, but four, the fourth being, naturally, time. (Not the fourth spatial dimension.) How exactly do these eyes let you see in the future? I'd recommend something along the lines of a super-rare and hard to produce chemical, like thiotimoline, which can interact with objects temporally due to molecular bond pressure. (First created, ahem, discovered by the renowned chemist Isaac Asimov.) If you're operating under the principle of 'magic is just supposed to be super technology', than this should satisfy the readers.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.