Say an interdimensional rift forms in the sky and on the other side are beings unbound by our laws of physics. They are also unbound from anything we would consider logic or reason.

How could they communicate/interact with us humans?

-Edit: To be fair, my question is inspired by the eldritch one however I didn't like the answers there particularly because they didn't focus on the "logic or reason" aspect (was more on the story elements which became too heavily an influence). I want a creative answer that can avoid relying on logic and reason.


  • They will not randomly decide to adopt human logic and reason
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just because they are unbound by those things, that doesn't mean that they cannot choose to follow them if they so please, do I assume correctly? I think in such a scenario, they would have to initiate and try their best to be logical and physical. Or do you want to know about unreasonable and illogical solutions that are not supported by physics? How about trying to communicate through making the sun explode via painting all oceans green?. I would advice you to watch the good old monty python stuff in that case, they are quite good at nonsense. $\endgroup$ – Raditz_35 Sep 12 '17 at 21:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sure I suppose you could justify your answer that they chose to understand logic and reason by random chance though that would be pretty lame......Maybe i could add that as a restriction $\endgroup$ – anon Sep 12 '17 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ Are they rational entities, as defined by Rational Choice Theory? Categorizing them as rational or irrational by that definition would be a powerful way to shape the question. If they are rational, is there anything that can be said regarding their goals? $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon - Reinstate Monica Sep 12 '17 at 22:23
  • $\begingroup$ We need to know what motivates them. Do they need to eat, sleep, reproduce? Our actions are logical because logic is a good way to find food and mates. Random behavior is less efficient. So, what motivates them? $\endgroup$ – DPT Sep 13 '17 at 0:05
  • $\begingroup$ I am VTC because if they do not act by logic or reason, they necessarily act randomly, for no reason, and their interactions with humans will be entirely a matter of chance. They can't even interact with humans because that would require categorizing humans as different that rocks, trees, water, dogs, birds or cattle: Such categorization demands some kind of reasoning ability. Thus they interact with humans like they do with rocks and dirt; they don't even know "humans" are a thing. Thus every answer must be purely opinion or invention. Zero reasoning prohibits anything else. $\endgroup$ – Amadeus-Reinstate-Monica Sep 13 '17 at 11:13

"Reason" means acting according to a purpose, with the actions judged by the viewer to be likely to achieve the purpose. You judge a baby to be reasonable: it has a purpose and acts to achieve it. By this standard the movement of an amoeba towards a perceived food source is also reasonable.

I can think of three different way by which the actions of an entity would not be reasonable.

  1. Purely chaotic.. @Raditz_35: Monty Python is a pretty funny example of that. Less funny is an insane person who perceives persecution by voices and so lights a house on fire. The action does not advance his cause, address or silence the voices, or otherwise help. It is pure chaos. It is hard to build a story around that.

  2. Observer does not perceive the whole situation. The reality experienced by these creatures is different than what we experience. Their observed actions may be relevant to something occurring on the ethereal plane we do not perceive. Or time runs backwards for them. Their actions may be appropriate and rational for the circumstances they perceive.

  3. Actions are not purpose driven. They are art. This is my favorite. If I look at you and go "ooo-weee-ooo", you do not know that my phrase is perfectly timed to Ace of Bass' "The Sign" which is playing in my head. Your ethereal creatures are performing a dance. Their movement and actions follow one from the next, not from any external stimuli or environmental characteristics, but because that is how the dance goes. They are not reasonable because they are not purposeful. They may be predictable - if you know the song you can join me in the lyrics. Or the creatures may be extemporizing actions as artistic impression of what is happening, or has happened, or might happen. If they know the piece, or know what is motivating the artistic expression, they may be doing things together because they are coperformers.

  • $\begingroup$ Oh 3 is brilliant, just the creative answer i was looking for. You are right that the beings could display an approximate patternistic behaviour without being derived from a logical or reasonable progression of events and the humans could apply logic to pick up on those behaviors. $\endgroup$ – anon Sep 14 '17 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ +1 for point 3. You're describing the Ekhat of Course of Empire. $\endgroup$ – LSerni Sep 14 '17 at 15:13

Something like a baby

A human baby don't move for logic reasons and more just for desire and instinct. They want a toy, and to get it, they will move towards it without thinking in consecuences or easier ways to obtain it, even hurting themselfs in the process for this lack of understanding in how everything works.

This huge a powerfull creatures would be prisioner of his desires and would trail around looking to satisfy them, without any other thought in their minds that the constant search for fullfilment.

In the same vein they would only pay attention to the humans if it's for something they want, failing to comply would only end in a fiery death or some kind of attachment if they find you intersting.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I applaud your attempt, but a baby is mostly moving for logical reasons. Because they want something, they try to get it. Similarly acting on desire is a logical process of goal - action - analysis - reaction. This may then ask the question is communication/interaction even possible as something must act on a desire to communicate or interact with something? I think it still is but the answer becomes even more comically insane. $\endgroup$ – anon Sep 12 '17 at 22:03
  • $\begingroup$ @anon I would beg to differ. Especially at the young ages, there is very little evidence of a logical structure to their movement, other than perhaps what structure arises from our DNA. Its only as they get older that they start forming rational movements. $\endgroup$ – Cort Ammon - Reinstate Monica Sep 12 '17 at 22:22

How could they communicate/interact with us humans?

Communicate: they would not.

To communicate you need the intent to communicate and then - but when you say "then" you're already in Logic 101 and you don't want this.

So, the elves might say something (more likely, just make a sound). Possibly they might stay. Or not. And they might hear the response. Or not. And they might do something with it. This once. By chance. I subject this is no communication at all.

By rigorous scientific examination, humankind would come to the conclusion that the elves are sentient, unless they aren't. There is no particular reason to choose one theory over the other, since both are correct and equally wrong (one more than the other).

Inter-act... more like "act and act"

It would be a very limited interaction. The elves would do whatever they wished to whoever they wished - provided they could - their wishes having no rhyme or reason. The humans would do the same - there being no fear of direct retaliation (an attack might happen, but not as a predictable consequence of anything done or not done, so you might as well do whatever you wanted).

Humans would probably deal with elves the same way they do with lightning bolts - try and devise ways of keeping them at a safe distance, or lacking that, devise ways of coping with the consequences.

Almost surely, several religions would soon arise with different theories on how to ensure the elves' goodwill or have a wish granted; and, by random chance, they would work often enough to convince those already convinced enough to explain away the inevitably many more counterexamples. Now that I come to think of it, this seems to me to have been, indeed, one of the earliest ways to deal with lightning bolts.

  • $\begingroup$ I think you have a valid argument as you are right that in order to communicate you need the logical desire and will to do so. However, I think interaction is still plausible and would follow what you described. $\endgroup$ – anon Sep 14 '17 at 14:07

First we need to make clear that the question means consciously applied logic and reason. Neither can be completely removed: there is a reason why an apple falls to earth; there is a logic to similar things behaving in a similar way. Gravity is unaware of, and does not use, logic or reason.

We are referring to conscious reason and logic, and the question says 'unbound' which I generally infer to mean that logic and reason do not inform their actions, not that they are unaware of them. It is possible (though somewhat unlikely) that a species which we would consider as having intelligence (since it will communicate) could exist.

So we have to consider their possible reasons for communicating with us. Note that they do not apply reason, but there will nevertheless be a reason that applies. I see that reason as being some natural force acting upon them, like gravity: they may naturally seek sentient beings, they may gain some emotional nourishment from this. This is unlikely to be malevolent, because that requires a certain amount of reason, but cows probably do not malevolently eat grass.

We have to assume that communication satisfies some kind of need. Of course, it could be random and accidental, but in this case there is nothing to maintain their communication and it can go nowhere purposefully. Note that gravity does not have a conscious purpose, but it was still able to pursuade Newton.

If they are communicating with us, then they must be drawn to us. They are unbound by our laws of physics, which implies that they cannot interact with finesse physically (although they may be able to clumsily interact), so communication would fill that need. They communicate with us to survive in our world - it would seem that is the only presence they have.

So, they will communicate with the intention of continuing communication. The communication will be like breathing to them and they will just keep on doing it - it will not necessarily be meaningful, although there may be sense to it. (A properly constructed sentence may well make sense, but is not necessarily meaningful in context)

However, we will read meaning into it, because that is what we do; interpreting meaning into the relatively meaningless. This is generally called divination and not disimilar to reading the future from tealeaves or the entrails of goats. There is though, the possibility that knowledge or wisdom or some kind of ethereal appreciation will be imparted, though maybe indirectly.

This will not, however, be intentional on their part. They have no clear intention (end point) beyond their natural proclivity to communicate (or maybe share) their existence.

They are probably, though not inevitably, benign. If the communication is their (unconscious) intention, then they will naturally continue that. It is in their interests, though unreasoned, to do nothing to upset that, although they will probably be unaware, through lack of reason, what they may or may not do to upset us.

Of course, they still may feed on us, emotionally or spiritually - though not physically.


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