Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Does Equivalent Exchang Apply In Real Life?
Fullmetal Alchemist Discussion Board > Fullmetal Alchemist Discussions > Fullmetal Alchemist Anime (FMA-1)
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
Claytonheim of Light


If you saw episode 49, you heard Dante's speech about equivalant exchange being a fairy tale. What she's basically saying is that life is not fair, and what you deserve is all you can take. So, is it? Do people always get their just desserts in the end, whether they're good or evil? She seems to use this philosophy to justify her actions, she has no fear of the consequences of killing and manipulating thousands of people. I haven't seen the whole series yet, so please don't spoil what her ultimate fate is, but what do you think applies in real life? Are ruthless people like Dante correct?
primus diddy
I guess it depends on your views on whether or not there's an afterlife. A baby who's born and dies soon after would go to heaven, or be reincarnated to a 'higher' being...or a more privilaged person, or what have you.

If you don't believe in an afterlife, then I suppose you can't believe in equivilant exchange.

I'd ramble about religion being part of it, but I'm just going to leave it at the afterlife comment, because that'd be the main idea.
Claytonheim of Light
But, say there is no afterlife, would someone like Dante who went through life taking whatever she wanted, not caring who she hurt, live a happy, contented life?
The Great Asparagus
scientifically, equivalent exchange totally counts, but all whooshily, then equivalent exchange doesn't really apply to everything. but it does to a lot of stuff. like, for example, if someone who's really strong can smash an apple really well, and this puny person comes up and they're like "whee!" and they try to smash the apple, you can say that in order for them to gain strength to smash the apple, they have to sacrifice their time and energy to obtaining such strength. howeeeverrr, if the almighty guy had genes of might and strength inherited, then... not really.

all this thinking makes my brain hurt.
Popogeejo
I could make a crude joke about equivlent exchange and sex but there are young ones around so I won't.
Safe to say I don't think Equivlent exchange applies to everything.
Molecular Alchemist
QUOTE(popogeejo @ Mar 6 2006, 08:23 PM) [snapback]359794[/snapback]

I could make a crude joke about equivlent exchange and sex but there are young ones around so I won't.
Safe to say I don't think Equivlent exchange applies to everything.

rolleyes.gif hehe

EE does apply in real life...to some extent. For example, you can't do science without balancing the equations, or else the reactions won't work...equivalency is required on both parts of the reaction (and i know from experince that it doesnt work when you get the stuff unbalanced) XD. However, in a more practical sense...it depends on the interpretation of EE--we all go to school to learn a trade, in hopes to become something great, right? In reality, very few people ever acheive the level of greatness that most people set out for. I mean, if you go to a class and you study for 8 hours a day, and your friend studies for 3 hours a day...and you both end up doing just as wel on the test, then where is the EE in that? One can argue that by studying, the knowledge that you gained is yours and yours alone, so you did yourself a benefit by studying...but, by EE, shouldn't the person who studied for 8 hours do better than the one that studied for 3? So in the end, i think that EE, in the sense that you can gain something if you put forth the effort, IS true in the real world. But, it may not be truly equivalent, because the world isn't equal...no two people are alike, so how can we expect a principle that requires equivalency at it's most basic level to work in an unequivalent world all of the time??? At least, that's how i see it...feel free to blow holes in the theory...I think i just gave myself a headache.... laugh.gif
JoshP1389
"Equivalent Exchange" =/= "Who said life is fair?"
Automne
No.
JoshP1389
Yes.
Automne
It was not an answer to your post.
Colette
No.



I just worked my ass off on my English essay and got a failing grade. Blargh at equivilance.




I haven't believed in equivilance in FMA since Izumi talked about her baby dying either. =/
Popogeejo
A toned down version of something I said a while ago on the same subject;

When your house burns down and you loose everything,what do you gain but guilt?
Conversly when you win the lottery what did you sacrifice?A dollar,2 dolloars?$30?Certainly not the jackpot.You gained without giving.
JoshP1389
QUOTE(SinLuxuria @ Mar 7 2006, 07:13 AM) [snapback]359854[/snapback]

It was not an answer to your post.

USE QUOTES PLZKTHXBUH-BYE
Tombow
Maybe.. just maybe, if you look at the equivalancy in the whole universe kind of way.
I'm not saying definitely, but in some cases, like lottery, someone wins the jackpot amount of money, not based on how much he/she spent, but based on how much he/she and other people, "in aggregate", had spent for buying non-wining tickets, minus overhead costs and other stuff.
If you focus on one individual person, no it's not equivalancy at work at all, but if you look at the whole picture, some stuff does have sort of equivalancy, in a sense that someone/some thing gains at the expense of others.
(Yeah, goes back to "Life is not fair" I guess.) happy.gif
Tyna
There is no such thing as EQUIVALENT exchange. There is just "exchange". It's true. Humankind cannot gain anything without sacrificing, but the price doesn't always equal exactly and sometimes, it doesn't happen the way we want it to. Sometimes, the things we lost are the things that we want to hold dear and sometimes, the things we gain are the things that we do not want. It's life.
Claytonheim of Light
Glad to see there are some thinkers in here! The general opinion seems to be that EE applies...to point.

Getting back to the example of Izumi's baby, is someone who lives a short, happy life better off then somone who lives a long. miserable one? in other words, is quality better then quantity?

Now, do you thing Dante is happy, even with her centuries of life? Think about if someone who was like her in the real world, responsible for the deaths of thousands of people. What would people think of that person. There are plenty of examples in history, how are thy remembered? Would you want to be thought of like that? How would you feel if you met one of those people? That seems to me like a rather poor quality of life.

Now think about people you know who are nice. What is the general opinion of them? Would you gladly do a favor for them if they asked? I think they enjoy a better quality of life.

So...maybe equivilant exchange operates more subtley, improving our quality of life.
Melydragon
Well said, Claytonheim of Light !!

The truth is that I always thought (since I started watching FMA) that Equvalent Exchange was, the worldīs. But after seeing episode 49 I changed my mind. It is true that you use EE most of the time. But sometimes the gain will not be equal to the sacrifice. Which I think is not really fair. As much as we would love to live in a perfect world, we just canīt. We still have a lot to learn from this life and world before we deserve the perfect world we want.
Joe J
There are plenty of philosophical and theological expressions that reflect my feelings on the matter, but I think the Rolling Stones put it best:

You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you might find
You get what you need

Peace,
Joe J.
Black Zero
Not really unless you start a fight with me. Full Contact time.
InternetAlchemist
I agree that EE applies up to a point. However, I have to point out that Dante's logic was flawed. Think back to basic math logic courses. Just because all Widgets are Fidgedts, that does not mean all Fidgets are Widgets. The law of equivlent exachange states that to gain something of equal value must be lost. It says nothing about what will happen if you lose. The law does not guarantee gain with loss, only loss with gain.
Automne
QUOTE(JoshP1389 Posted Yesterday @ 02:38 PM)
QUOTE(SinLuxuria @ Mar 7 2006 @ 07:13 AM)
It was not an answer to your post.

USE QUOTES PLZKTHXBUH-BYE

And why would I ever quote the thread title? rolleyes.gif

Think before posting, plzkthxbye!
JoshP1389
You don't really think much on people's reactions do you?

[example]

QUOTE(SinLuxuria @ Yesterday, 05:40 AM)
QUOTE(Claytonheim of Light @ Mar 6 2006, 07:43 PM) [snapback]359742[/snapback]

-snip-

No.

[/example]

That's it.
Automne
No, I don't, not when this is clear, or at least when it requires a bit of thinking to come to the conclusion my post was not directed to you, especially if this one was not quoted.

But, if you're so bothered by it:

QUOTE
Does Equivalant Exchang Apply In Real Life?

No.

Happy? Good. rolleyes.gif
Philosopher's Stone
Equivalent Exchange is analogous to the Law of Conservation of Mass. Meaning you can neither destroy or create matter in a *chemical* reaction. As far as I can tell, it is no different for alchemy since all they're really doing tapping into an nigh-infinite well of energy using magic and using it to force reactions to occur according to their will. (revealed in the next episode).

In other words, they're reading way too much into the law by applying it to things related to what humans value. So yes, Dante is right insofar in that she saying that you won't always get something back that *you personally value.* If you wanted to apply the law of conservation of mass or conservation of energy to the death of a baby it would be very easy to do. If the baby dies, the mass is still there somewhere in the universe, even after the corpse rots. Similarily, the human animal is composed of many polymers and complex molecules that contain a lot of energy. The chemical energy is "returned to the earth" by being converted into other forms. It's a cold impassionate mathematical value we apply to understand how the reaction works and nothing more. It's a tool, not a magical formula to get anything you want.

But to take the more philosophical angle, your actions yield consequences, whether or not you like those consequences. There are always consequences to anything you do, some of it you can't even control, some of it you simply lack the wisdom or intelligence to undertand. The point is that you can't control all the consequences of your actions, but nobody else is responsible for them except yourself. You have to live with those consequences beyond any arbitrary agreement of "fairness" you may think exists between yourself and the universe, God or other humans. Justice only applies to one human to another, and even then, there are humans who don't follow your understanding of "justice."

Example: By transmuting their mother, Edward and Alphonse were trading their innocence for an early adulthood. Maybe they believed they were getting mother back, but that isn't what has occured. Ed loses an arm and Alphonse loses his body. This consequence is as "Equivalent" as any other consequence they could expect from their foolish actions, they may not value it, but as far as the universe is concerned, that was a fair trade. That's casuality kicking your ass.
Claytonheim of Light
I think Joe J and the Stones hit it right on the head. "You get what you need." This leads me to disagree with Interner Alchemist, who says that while there is loss with gain, there is not necessarily gain with loss. I think the gain we get when we lose something is just not always apparant immediately, or we can't percieve it until we can look back on it in hindsight.

For example, when Ed loses his arm and leg, he learns a very valuable lesson. He learns that it is wrong to go against the natural flow of things, that he is not above natural law any more than any othe living thing. He dosn't understand at first, until Izumi drills it into his head. (She probably learned the same way...)This is a valuable bit of insight into the nature of reality, an a step on his maturing process, as he approaches Izumi's level of wisdom. Thus, he "gets what he needs."
Philosopher's Stone
QUOTE(Claytonheim of Light @ Mar 8 2006, 06:47 PM) [snapback]360441[/snapback]

I think Joe J and the Stones hit it right on the head. "You get what you need." This leads me to disagree with Interner Alchemist, who says that while there is loss with gain, there is not necessarily gain with loss. I think the gain we get when we lose something is just not always apparant immediately, or we can't percieve it until we can look back on it in hindsight.

For example, when Ed loses his arm and leg, he learns a very valuable lesson. He learns that it is wrong to go against the natural flow of things, that he is not above natural law any more than any othe living thing. He dosn't understand at first, until Izumi drills it into his head. (She probably learned the same way...)This is a valuable bit of insight into the nature of reality, an a step on his maturing process, as he approaches Izumi's level of wisdom. Thus, he "gets what he needs."

I personally would have said that humans adapt to their environment. Every act you commit to doesn't simply change the world, but etches itself into your mind. When something terrible happens, you change mentally by reaching a level of acceptance of your fate. Your personal growth causes you to seek out the advantages of your situation instead of languishing in despair. That simple willingness to do the best with what you've got is what makes that individual stronger. By having restrictions forced upon that individual, that individual then must learn how to operate under those restrictions.

So if I were Izumi's apprentice, I wouldn't particularly care to have my ass beaten in by her. I already have my own understanding of my place in the world and I feel her version is a bit niave. But that's just little old me.
Wesmaster
I believe EE exists primarly in science balincing equations and coverstion of math etc
but in life it simply cannot work Dante put it perfectly.... what about all the people that did the state alchemist exam with ed all that work was for nothing
the people who work all their life but never get out of poverty
the people who do no work all their life and live like kings
izumis baby died and gained nothing

in science yes thats why its the basic principle of alchemy b/c alchemy is a science
but in life no
Claytonheim of Light
Excellently, put, Philosopher's stone.

I think Izumi uses that approach because that is the best way to get trough to a person of Ed's age or level of understanding. As he gets older, and proves he is more mature, she treats him more and more as an equal. Early on she is like a drill seargant, she has to break his ego and instill his absolute confidence in her abilities. The teacher has to prove to the student that she knows what she's talking about. Admittedly, her methods are severe, but not uncommon in traditional, serious Asian martial arts training.
Hyleaus
I think that any belief whatsoever in cosmic order is inherently skeptical. I prefer not to talk about things to which I cannot begin to understand; however, I can talk about sociology. Perhaps this natural law exists for elements and chemistry and the like, but I do not think that it exists on a sociological scale. For instance:

I happen to have met a professor at lunch the other day. We got to talking, and she invited me to be a part of her research team over the summer. The research is of such importance that it will be published. On an application, this is going to put me above nearly all of my competitors. But why? There is no equal exchange here: I will get a job based on research that was arbitrarily alloted to me. Not because I'm a hard worker or because of my grades.

Take another case point: Those who look pretty, time and time again get off in court. If anyone dares to contest that, I defy you to sit in on a trial. I spent a few years on a mock-trial team and the judges don't lie about their being distracted by presentation over logic. It's sad, but juries are worse. If I were ever to give advice worthy of heeding it would be this: NEVER GET ARRESTED. You will probably get convicted because of gullible juries.

That was off topic, sorry. The point is that these things are not the workings of Equivalent exchange. I would like to venture this proviso, though: When talking about EE, who can say where the beginning is and where the end is? For instance, in my first example, perhaps it was through hard work that I impressed my professor, or perhaps the person whom I beat out for a job will have a better life than me.

Sapientissimi etiam omnes fines non possunt videre- "Even the wisest cannot see all ends" Tolkien

Hyleaus
Omega Shell
<Moved the thread from FMA Anime AMerican Audience sub-forum. 02/03/07 ~Tombow>
<Merged "Equivalent Exchange *contains Spoliers*" thread with the following two pages of posts here. 02/19/07 ~Tombow>

My theory: Dante says Equivalent Exchange does not exist. Simple as that. Dante is wrong, however. It does exist, but it can be manipulated. Yes, it sounds crazy, but I think the series backs it up.

Let's start at the very beginging. Ed and Al try to transmute their mother back to life. Al gives his body for his mother's body. Ed gives his left leg for his mother's soul. Ed also gives his right arm for his brother's soul. He then binds Al's soul into the armor. Their result: A homunculi and a kid in a suit of armor. They paid a body and 2 limbs and gained a body and two lives. If you examine it deep down, there are 3 parts to a body: physical body, life, and memory. In every person, the cost would probably be 50%-12.5%-37.5%, repsectively. Al paid his physical body for his mothers. Equal trade. Now, Ed paid his leg (25% of the 50%, which is 12.5.%) for his mother's life. The ability to live, basically. He also paid the same for Al. Both Al and Sloth have no memory, but they both have life.

Izumi does the same kind of thing. However, in her case it is different. She already has a body without memories, so all she needs and wants is life for the baby. She gives a few of her less-important organs for his life, and it works. She loses the organs, and Wrath gains life. It's an equal trade.

Once more, Al does it. He gives up his life and memory while Wrath (unintentionally and uncontrolably) gives his right arm and left leg. Since Ed's body was not complete (had no arm and leg), I assume the equivalence needed an extra part, and thus took Wrath's limbs. Ed comes back with his complete body (no automail), complete life, and complete memory. Al is gone.

The final human transmutation we see is Ed's. He offers his complete mind, body, and life for Al's. Ed goes away, and Al comes back with his complete body, life, and mind (but remember, his memories were linked with his BODY, not his armor. He receieved all the memories that were linked to his body.) It was a completely equal trade.. or was it? Ed recieves his body, mind, and life on the other side of the gate.

Remember back to episode 49/50. Dante sends Ed to the other side of the gate. Here, during this phase, we witness both sides at once. On the Alchemist side, Al has his mind and life, but no body. On the WW1 side, Ed has his mind and life, but no body. Zoom to episode 51, and Al is complete on the Alchemist side, and Ed is complete on the (post)-WW1 side. They both gained their bodies on opposite sides of the gate at NO COST!

It seems as though Dante is wrong in some cases, but right in the other.. how come? The equivalent exchange theory is correct, like I said before, but they gained something without losing anything.. How could this be? I think there is also a law of addition. Anything added to one side of the gate is added to the other. Hundreds of thousands of people die in Ishbal and such, while hundreds of thousands die throughout WW1. Death is added to both sides.

What do you all think?
FMA-Freak
That does make sense, but they did give an equivelent price for the last episode, I think. Al gave up his entire memories of Ed. And he already had his soul. So by giving up only memories of Ed, he got his body, and was turned into a kid, the same age before they transmuted they're mom. Does that make sense?
Omega Shell
QUOTE(FMA-Freak @ Mar 25 2006, 11:22 PM) [snapback]369369[/snapback]

That does make sense, but they did give an equivelent price for the last episode, I think. Al gave up his entire memories of Ed. And he already had his soul. So by giving up only memories of Ed, he got his body, and was turned into a kid, the same age before they transmuted they're mom. Does that make sense?


No. Hohenheim mentions to Ed that "Dante seperated my body, mind and soul within the gate." His body, being just that. His mind, being his memories. His soul being his life and ability to live. Exactly as I said above. Now, remember the butcher-guy for example? He was bound to a suit of armor, aswell. He did not lose any memory before the transmutation, and neither did the other brothers bound to the armor. This shows that minds have to power to stay with the souls. But with Al, his did not when he was originally transmuted. That led me to believe that his old mind stayed with his body, and he created a new one. When he transmuted himself to get Ed back, he gave up his *current* mind and his soul in exchange for Ed's. His soul probably joined his body back at the gate, which was already joined with his old mind. The old mind hadn't been used since the brothers tried to transmute their mother.

He did age in the gate. The bodies in the gate do age over time. We saw this through Wrath. Not only did a homunculi age, but a homunculi in the gate aged. Al's body was in that same gate, so I assume his body did age at the same rate their world was.

Yes, the brothers did give an equal price in the end, but what I was getting at was that they both gained their bodies in the opposite worlds. In episode 49-50, Ed was in "Other-Ed"'s body, with "Fullmetal"'s soul and mind. Al was in the metal suit with Al's soul and mind. While in opposite worlds, they were both equal to each other. They were missing their bodies. However in the final episode they both gain their bodies while they are in opposite worlds. If you think just about that, they gained without loss. This would prove Dante's speakings as true, but they had to lose certain things in order to gain others.
MonsterEnvy
It is equivalent exchange at the end. Ed actually isn't creating anything, he's just pulling stuff out of the doors, and, in return, he goes into the doors. Then, to leave again, he had to give up his arm. He messed up by trying to go out of the wrong side.
Omega Shell
I don't understand what you're trying to say. He only gives up his arm for Al at the begining of the series. But yes, he does just go through the gate at the end, and he pulls Al out of the gate. That would be equivalent exchange.

But I just thought of something.. By Dante saying that E-E doesn't exist, is she right or wrong? Many people throughout the series give examples of how it doesn't exist. For example, one person says "a baby that dies at birth gains nothing, but loses life." or something. Could the law only apply to alchemy and not to the world?
Sajid
ill have to disagree......the ingredients of the Trisha's body were already there. Since they failed all they created was Sloth, there was never any soul forged. As for what the Elrics gained for their bodily sacrifice were the 4 years that they spent together which we see in the FMA series. In episode 44- Hohenheim of light...Hohneheim mentions that "what we gain is not always wanted" ... hence at episode 51 -Laws and Promises... we see that Edward trades the memory of Al i.e his experience for Al's body....this fact is also mentioned by Hohenheim. So its basically the exact trade just the opposite way.... Body=Memories/Experience...then Memories/Experience=Body....and thats y he gets his exact 10year old self.

oh and FMA ROCKS!!!!!!
Omega Shell
The ingredients for the body were there, but I think it needed a full and complete body to do the transmutation. By the meaning of "soul" I meant "life." There are 3 basic componants to a person: life, their body, and their memories. Sloth had the life, or the "soul," and the body. Al gave his body for Sloth, and Ed gave his arm for Sloth's ability to live.

In episode 51, Ed traded his body for Al's. He does not give up his mind anywhere in the show. Complete body = Complete body. And Al is 12.
kiori
Don't you think that maybe, when you consider Ed's last trunsmutation of Al, that Hohenheim was right? He said that everything they went through, the blood, sweat and tears, was the price they paid and the reason Ed was still alive. Not only that, but he did lose his arm and leg once again and that added to what he paid. All things considered, I think he paid more than a fair price to bring Al back.
While Equivalent Exchange is a pleasant idea, that you'll always get something if you work for it or pay the price, I have to say that Dante has a good point. Some people are born into a rich family and don't do a damn thing to earn it. Others that are less fortunate may work for it but never get it. It's just the way of the world - there will always be unequal distribution of wealth and some people will get everything and some will get nothing. I'm not saying that you won't get something if you work for it, but E.E. definately has a lot of exceptions.
Omega Shell
Like I said above, maybe E.E. only applies to transmuting and such?

And then at what point is it able to be bypassed? Do they ever use the complete philosopher's stone on a transmutation? (I haven't seen episodes 41-49 yet.)
Damascus
As far as physical laws, Equivalent Exchange is unerringly true. This is shown in the Law of Conservation of Mass, Newton's third law, and the first law of thermodynamics. The exchange of energy in a closed system is always equivalent, no matter what.

When you think about social systems and stuff like that, it's not quite the same deal. I beleived in it for most of the season, and applied it to life, but even before this episode, I saw that there were flaws everywhere. Sometimes, people are born into a wealthy family, and have to do very little work to get by in life; gaining without sacrifice. And other times, people in the lower class can work as hard as they can but get nothing for their efforts; giving without reward.

The flaw is in humans, and where our flaws are expressed, the law of EE is noticably skewed. I still believe it is a healthy principle to live by, as they say in the last episode, and there is pressure in society to pertain to this kind of law, but its not perfect.

That's what I think. biggrin.gif
nakagos bunny
I don't think equivalent exchange applies in real life.

Look at people who work like dogs all their life but don't get a high salary so they don't have much to show for it.

Then there's people who might have an easier job but the salary is higher and so they do have a lot to show for it.

I definitley don't think everything works out evenly or fairly.
Popogeejo
QUOTE
I don't think equivalent exchange applies in real life


Tell that to a scientist or Mathmatician.

Equivlent exchange applys to Chemistry and Maths.It would be nice if it applied to human interaction and social situations but it doesn't.You can bust yor hump all day for an attractive member of the opposite sex (or same,whatever floats your boat) but get nothing but a "thank you" in return.
In the market place equivlent exchange is boasted as law but offten ignored in the name of profit.A shop will charge as much as it could for a product no matter how crappy it is.
Claytonheim of Light
I want to adress a few points that people have been making lately:

First, the concepts of "gain" and "loss". Everyone immedeatly thinks of ''gain" in terms of material things, money and good looks. While it's true they certainly help, is that really all there is to a contented life? Plato believed that good looks were really a disadvantage in the long run. It is true that better looking people are favored all around, especially earlier in life, but no one stays good looking forever. I know I'm making generalizations here, but just for argument's sake, often times this causes good looking people to have less developed personalities, because they have so much handed to them, they don't have to learn to work to get people to like them. As they get older, and their looks fade, and looks become less important to their peers, unless they have a strong, interesting personality, they have nothing to offer. They end up wondering what they did wrong, since they are so used to the royal treatment for no apparant reason.

And if your attraction to a person is based only on what they looik like, you're in for a rude awakening. That rush you feel on seeing a gorgeous person is just your hormones screaming "BREED!" It wears off in time. If the person dosn't have a good personality, you will no longer want to see them. So, maybe getting a good looking person isn't always such a "gain".

The same applies to wealth. Someone who has everything can still be miserable. Elvis and Marilyn Monroe come to mind. They had every material thing a human could want, and yet they killed themselves. Monks take a vow of poverty as a means to enlightenment. So who really "gained" more, Elvis or the Dali Lama?

I go back to my point about EE being more sublle then people realize. If you work at the things in life that really matter in the long run, you will "gain" a rich, fulfilling life, even if you are poor and ugly.
princess_punker84
i know this is a little OT, but when i read this it made me think of this stand up comedian
QUOTE
First, the concepts of "gain" and "loss". Everyone immedeatly thinks of ''gain" in terms of material things, money and good looks. While it's true they certainly help, is that really all there is to a contented life? Plato believed that good looks were really a disadvantage in the long run. It is true that better looking people are favored all around, especially earlier in life, but no one stays good looking forever.

He was like, there's a surgery to make your boobs higher, your face tighter, your stomch flatter, but you can't fix stupid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK anyway back OT, EE applies sometimes in life, like many other people have agreed and many have also agreed EE applies 99% of the time in Chem and Math. Sometimes, it boils down to whether you believe in an afterlife, whether its heaven, or reincarnation, or paradise.... in any of those situations, if you do wrong in life, you're not gonna get ANYTHING good...but there are people who dont believe in that, and thats why theres karma...what goes around, comes around 3 fold...ok im done had to put my 2 cents in laugh.gif
Claytonheim of Light
Thank you, princess_punker84, I was hoping someone would bring up karma! I think EE is closely akin to karma, and that's why I maintain that it's real. First off, there's a bit more to karma then "what goes around comes around," most westerners don't get the whole concept. In the east, it's not considered so much a religious theory as a universal law, like gravity or thermodynamics.

A good word to use when translating karma is duty. It is each person's duty to live a happy, fulfilling life. When we enter this world, we are given certain advantages and certain drawbacks, some more than others. This is fate. Your karma is how well you do your duty,which is to make the best of what you have to work with. So, someone can be rich and famous but miserable, this person has bad karma. On the flip side, a poor person can be happy and content, this person has good karma. The way to overcome your fate is to be the best person you can be, this is practicing good karma, and you will be rewarded with a rich, fulfilling life.

To use a Matix example, it's not that you can dodge the bullets, it's that you don't have to. Back to the example of trying and trying to get a hot girl and getting nowhere--this is trying to dodge the bullets. But, if you practice good karma, you will realize that the girl just dosn't like you, and being with someone who dosn't like you is only going to make you both miserable in the end. Now you realize the bullets aren't real.

To sum up, I maintain that EE is for real, on the basis that if you work toward what is really important in life, you will be rewarded with what is really valuable in life.
asunder
QUOTE(Claytonheim of Light @ Mar 29 2006, 05:27 PM) [snapback]371174[/snapback]

To use a Matix example, it's not that you can dodge the bullets, it's that you don't have to. Back to the example of trying and trying to get a hot girl and getting nowhere--this is trying to dodge the bullets. But, if you practice good karma, you will realize that the girl just dosn't like you, and being with someone who dosn't like you is only going to make you both miserable in the end. Now you realize the bullets aren't real.


I think your example of karma is a bit off...or at least a bit muddled.

equivalent exchange in real life? That's not generally true.
A quick example which has probably already been talked about:

In college, you quickly realize that there are people who don't put any effort (let's call them Group A) , and there are people who have to work hard in order to get the same grades (Group cool.gif and a third category where no matter how much effort you put into a task, there is little or no reward (Group C). Almost as if you were doomed from the start.

err in summary:
Group A: No/little work -> Reward!
Group B: Lots of hard work -> Reward!
Group C: Lots of hard work -> Minimal / No Reward

(I've been in all of these groups depending on the difficulty of the course.)

Some people relate equivalent exchange to biology,chemistry and mathematics. Aside from the theories....in which Equivalent exchange could occur. Real life isn't so simple...for biology and chemistry...there's a lot more complexity than what the theories tell you. If you want to give me an example of Equivalent exchange in these subjects, I'll do my best to provide you with examples where it doesn't work in the same context. In the area of mathematics, any scientist or researcher knows that using real world data can lead to unexplicable results sometimes....where the result deviates from what you expected in a model or a theory. In any of these cases, I like to say that real-world data has something called 'random noise' ... which prevents your results from real world data to exactly fit your predictived model/theory.


Edit:
QUOTE(Claytonheim of Light @ Mar 29 2006, 05:27 PM) [snapback]371174[/snapback]

A good word to use when translating karma is duty.

maybe you're thinking of the word dharma...which is a translation of duty.
Claytonheim of Light
It's true I.m no expert on Buddhism, so sorry if I'm using the wrong terms... but anyway, I think what you're saying is that some people just have natural gifts which make life easier for them for no apparant reason. (Some believe it's due to behavior in a past life, but that's another discusion...)

So, person A is highly intelligent and can excell in whatever he chooses with minimal effort.

Person B is good in some areas, poor in others.

Person C has low intelligence, and can't quite get anything right.

Person A can become rich, and seem to have everything, but unless he is a good person, he will still be miserable. he has gained nothing truly valuable.

Person B may work very hard at, say, math, and just not get anywhere with it. But, he will realize a career in math is not in the cards for him, and he can still have a good life doing something else. He may feel disappointment at his failure, but it's not the end of the world, this isn't true "loss", he'll be ok in the end.

Person C has much fewer options open to him, but if he is a good person he will still be a happy person. His inner Buddah will still manifest, thus he "gains", despite losing out on material things.

So, EE may not provide what we want in the short term, but in the long run it is there for us.
Hope this makes sense...
Aleppo
QUOTE(Claytonheim of Light @ Mar 30 2006, 06:45 PM) [snapback]371692[/snapback]

It's true I.m no expert on Buddhism, so sorry if I'm using the wrong terms... but anyway, I think what you're saying is that some people just have natural gifts which make life easier for them for no apparant reason. (Some believe it's due to behavior in a past life, but that's another discusion...)

So, person A is highly intelligent and can excell in whatever he chooses with minimal effort.

Person B is good in some areas, poor in others.

Person C has low intelligence, and can't quite get anything right.

Person A can become rich, and seem to have everything, but unless he is a good person, he will still be miserable. he has gained nothing truly valuable.

Person B may work very hard at, say, math, and just not get anywhere with it. But, he will realize a career in math is not in the cards for him, and he can still have a good life doing something else. He may feel disappointment at his failure, but it's not the end of the world, this isn't true "loss", he'll be ok in the end.

Person C has much fewer options open to him, but if he is a good person he will still be a happy person. His inner Buddah will still manifest, thus he "gains", despite losing out on material things.

So, EE may not provide what we want in the short term, but in the long run it is there for us.
Hope this makes sense...



With all the discussion about math, science and philosophy, perhaps we need to remember the book "The Tao of Physics". The intersection of eastern philosophy and quantum pysics. If I remember correctly, the main thrust is the correlation between the journey into ones inner being and the path followed into the world of subatomic physics.

For me, the real law at work is the conservation of energy. The Ed's father said it, "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed... it can only change it's form. And in addition, one needs to reference Entropy. The degradation of energy into a less usable form.

One additional thought... This series was created in Japan. It is a mistake to assume that the Judea-Christian values that dominate every aspect of our lives here in the US (spirit crushing, mind numbing patriarchal tribalism) was even a passing thought as the creator of this series developed the characters and the plot.

Equivilent Exchange is like a pricetag, but the price changes in response to market demand.
Claytonheim of Light
Ahh, quantum physics, physics we're just beginning to have the slightest understanding of....I think it's a great analogy for the point I'm trying to make, there's so much we just don't know yet. Do those electrons leap dimensions? My point about EE is like that, it's much bigger then we can ever concieve of. Our actions ad choices hve consequences and result that we will never see that echo through the ages. From our little point of view in our brief lives, it seems harsh and unfair, but try to see that all those chaoticly jostling water molecules are really forming the pattern waves in a huge ocean.

And I would differ with your point about FMA having no references to Judeo-Christian thought. Cornello is clearly modeled after a manipulative Catholic priest, and when Dante is leading Rose through some ruins which look a lot like a church, she calls it something like "a temple of an ancient religion, which was so intolerant of others it destroyed itself."
gilgamesh
i agree equivalent exchange does indeed apply like in newton's laws and conservation of mass and etc..
but in more object matter or things like money or fame you cannot have equivance. it's like the eye for an eye law. Even if someone does break your arm and you get to break his arm, chances are that one of you is hurt more than the other. You can even look at our capitalist society. the fact that some people make goods and are payed less than their hard earned effort shows how equivalent exchange doesnt always work. In the battle of good and evil it does exist as good cannot exist without evil.
FMAchicka
I Believe in some cases equivilent exchange exsists in real life.
depends how you look at it.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.