|
Post by Marnath on Aug 17, 2012 21:36:44 GMT
Has anyone else noticed that Annie is quicker to touch Ys than anyone else? His hand, his face, his fur...Not even Reynard gets that kind of attention. I am not going to presume on what that means, but I imagine Annie's feelings for Ys are more complicated than just friendship. She kind of has to touch him to ride around on his shoulder. But I get your point, she does seem closer to him than Rey. Probably due to that fight they had, they're probably not as close as they used to be.
|
|
gary
Full Member
Posts: 121
|
Post by gary on Aug 17, 2012 22:05:34 GMT
She kind of has to touch him to ride around on his shoulder. But I get your point, she does seem closer to him than Rey. Probably due to that fight they had, they're probably not as close as they used to be. The only interaction they've had since then has been really affectionate, though. The make up hug in 'from the forest she came' and her randomly hugging his neck in' smitty and parley'.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Aug 17, 2012 22:46:22 GMT
I note that by some interpretations of these new rules there's no reason why Mort should be the ghost of anyone in particular, or even be composed of human soul. After all, if people believe in ghosts, there will be ghosts, regardless of process. According to "The Lore of the Land" (an excellent gazzetteer of English legends), ghosts actually were often thought of as something strange and spooky out there, rather than departed humans.
|
|
Ender
Junior Member
Posts: 89
|
Post by Ender on Aug 18, 2012 1:52:01 GMT
Sorry I don't have time to check if this has already been mentioned but I want to quickly post this while it's on my mind. What about etheric beings that become human (Foley House kids). How does that even work? If you believe the theory that etheric beings need humans to believe in them to exist, then isn't that a loophole that they can perpetually believe in themselves? (assuming there would always be someone to turn them human again after they've grown old and died and been reborn as an etheric being again, since they obviously believe in themselves).
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Aug 18, 2012 1:58:26 GMT
Welcome to the forums, any new people I haven't greeted yet! Do you believe he wants Annie or somebody else in court with a weaker mind to be perturbed and so affected by this information? Maybe he just wants people boggled and in awe of him. I'm pretty sure Coyote has an etheric function and what he does somehow contributes to the overall flow. My guess is that he's like a eroding tide that keeps "materialistic" sediment from plugging up the routes by which ether flows back to the general pool like the ocean eats away at river deltas and keeps the rivers navigable. But Coyote also has persona and can therefore be bored. Whatever his function may be he does want to be entertained. It has been addressed on this very board that perhaps Kat is gaining something of an etheric being by the robot's belief (also in technical terms of story and theme, Kat being drawn into the forest would prove to be very compelling to the plot i can imagine). Maybe one of the other two mediums-in-waiting could be so affected (we already know coyote has a vested interest and is courting Annie fiercely, why not have the other mediums to throw advantage against the court?) Maybe. I'm withholding judgement on Kat because I can explain how she appears to Zimmy with only her technical abilities, and also because the robots are only electrical appliances in the view of at least one guide... but even if that's the case they may be funneling etheral layers in Kat's direction. I expect that Kat as a robot goddess wouldn't be welcome in the Wood at all, though assuming the proper protocols were followed Coyote might find her entertaining for a brief visit. Mortimer, is beginning to come under my suspicions because of this recent revelation. In terms of story, he is in one of the best positions for betrayal and sabotage... I note that by some interpretations of these new rules there's no reason why Mort should be the ghost of anyone in particular, or even be composed of human soul. After all, if people believe in ghosts, there will be ghosts, regardless of process. It has been formspring'd that Mort was a living person at one time but this doesn't present any problem for the overlay theory. It's also implied that he was given the job which makes me speculate that there is some sort of intelligent agency now managing the etheric flow cleaning. I am hoping for a spiritual bureaucracy because that would be interesting, possibly something like that one in the Beatlejuice movie. So it's a slur against Annie's ancestors - can we infer that the fire elementals, as such, have died out? It may be true but we can't infer that from what was said. As for the Coyote or Ys depending on humans to "exist" - are you talking about the "real" or physical world? There's another place of existence, the Ether. I think it's more than just a dumping ground for psychic energy - as the court seems to think it. Does it contain independent personalities? OR just the will and stories of those who've gone there? Is the existence, in the physical world, the only existence Coyote is talking about? Assuming you're asking me, Coyote appears to be saying there is a dualistic continuum (material/etherial) and at least two ways of perceiving reality. He swims in the ether and sees with it in much different ways than humans usually do, though I'd bet he can also see as a human does if he wants, and neither ether-vision nor matter-sight is more correct or all-inclusive (like how colors fade away when Antimony's in the ether). And I agree the etherium must be more than a dump for dead persons, it can cause effects in the material as manipulating the material can cause effects in the ether (like how people die when you kill their bodies, or possibly the power station). My guess is that the ether will turn out to be something like an eternal mind, which fragments into all other consciousness and then returns to itself. strictly speaking, he's not lying. Just not telling the whole story. Agree, I am waiting to see if another shoe drops on the whole "I do not exist" thing but at the moment I am going with the overlay theory and the notion that Coyote is saying he doesn't exist because he isn't formed around a particular coyote, just the abstract idea of one, which is why he looks stylized. He looks like a coyote skull when he confronts/projects that or his belief in his own non-existence. But for now this theory seems to be internally consistent and I have been able to explain things from the comic with it. If it turns out to be false I think it'd have to be the case that a large chunk of something we think we know about Antimony's line or the rules about dying would have to be false, or something along those lines. There must be something to limit all this belief bollocks One pretty big limiting factor is that basically none of the speculation going on in the forum has any firm basis in the comic itself. We've had one largely symbolic and very sketchy exposé from someone who grins all the time. Well, within the overlay theory the limitations are the ends of the continuum, the material and the etherial. Though the overlay can cause changes in both it is also anchored there, though one could look at that as mere inertia, the two orbiting each other.
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Aug 19, 2012 6:58:20 GMT
(1) We don't know that the psychopomps think of ALL robots as "electrical appliances". Just the tic-toc birds. (2) Leaving the comic behind... there is some suspicion that the universe we live in is a computer simulation. According to one thing I've read, it is JUST large enough that if it were a quantum computer, it could simulate itself in real time. And there is some weak evidence for bug fixes and upgrades, in the form of scientists having detailed data and forming theories that don't match that data but nobody seems to notice for years - then suddenly it's really obvious. (Which could be explained by the data retroactively changing.)
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Aug 19, 2012 7:24:04 GMT
(2) Leaving the comic behind... there is some suspicion that the universe we live in is a computer simulation. According to one thing I've read, it is JUST large enough that if it were a quantum computer, it could simulate itself in real time. And there is some weak evidence for bug fixes and upgrades, in the form of scientists having detailed data and forming theories that don't match that data but nobody seems to notice for years - then suddenly it's really obvious. (Which could be explained by the data retroactively changing.) There is always the possibility, but its a little solipsist for my taste. To my mind, a computer that simulates every particle and wave of the universe in it's entirety would require more mass in memory than it would in actual matter to act it out in the "real" world, but then again I haven't yet delved into quantum mechanics. Too left brain for me, gave me wicked headaches just reading the basic rules. As far as scientists forming unsupported hypotheses that come true, that's kinda how hypotheses work. You take what data you have and make a guess. An educated guess, hopefully, but a guess nonetheless. Then you perform experiments and test your theory. I think you would really have to chart a trend of truly outlandish theories coming true before you could make the claim that a deity/quantum admin is retroactively aiding science research. I am also interested whether Diego's machines and the other models count as "appliances" as well, or whether this is a singular definition for the tic-tocs. It could turn out that they have some kind of etheric influence similar to souls after all. Kat's aura might have started developing after she fixed Robot the first time, and he placed his trust and gratitude in her, then expanding when he began telling the others. Hopefully soon she'll be powerful enough to put some robotic spankies on Coyote, and anyone else who gets in her way.
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Aug 19, 2012 8:11:23 GMT
As far as scientists forming unsupported hypotheses that come true, that's kinda how hypotheses work. You take what data you have and make a guess. An educated guess, hopefully, but a guess nonetheless. Then you perform experiments and test your theory. I think you would really have to chart a trend of truly outlandish theories coming true before you could make the claim that a deity/quantum admin is retroactively aiding science research. Either you misread something or I misstated it. It isn't about forming unsupported hypotheses that turn out to be true; it's about forming an incorrect hypothesis based on data that is not consistent with the incorrect hypothesis - and the discrepancy being ignored by everyone. Like taking a list of every day it rains, which includes every day of the week at least once, and saying "As this list shows, it only rains on Tuesdays". And everyone else looks at your list showing rain on Mondays and Fridays and etc., and they all accept that it only rains on Tuesdays. For YEARS. Creating their own lists of when it rains, including rain on Sundays, and saying "See, it only rains on Tuesdays." Then suddenly one morning everyone wakes up and says "Wait a minute! Today's Thursday and it's raining! Further, all those lists say it rained on other days of the week all along! Why did we ever think it only rained on Tuesdays?"
|
|
Rea
Junior Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by Rea on Aug 19, 2012 12:01:18 GMT
Luckily, I don't see anything that would disturb this wonderful friendship... yet... It could happen over Ysengrin thinking that the fire elemental ancestors were more important than the human ones. Either you misread something or I misstated it. It isn't about forming unsupported hypotheses that turn out to be true; it's about forming an incorrect hypothesis based on data that is not consistent with the incorrect hypothesis - and the discrepancy being ignored by everyone. Like taking a list of every day it rains, which includes every day of the week at least once, and saying "As this list shows, it only rains on Tuesdays". And everyone else looks at your list showing rain on Mondays and Fridays and etc., and they all accept that it only rains on Tuesdays. For YEARS. Creating their own lists of when it rains, including rain on Sundays, and saying "See, it only rains on Tuesdays." Then suddenly one morning everyone wakes up and says "Wait a minute! Today's Thursday and it's raining! Further, all those lists say it rained on other days of the week all along! Why did we ever think it only rained on Tuesdays?" Do you have a real-world example of something like that? I don't think I've ever noticed something like it.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Aug 19, 2012 13:18:00 GMT
To my mind, a computer that simulates every particle and wave of the universe in it's entirety would require more mass in memory than it would in actual matter to act it out in the "real" world, but then again I haven't yet delved into quantum mechanics. How about a universe that has only two dimensions, where what we perceive as 3d reality is only a function? That would be about the same thing as a simulation but without the computer. It could turn out that they have some kind of etheric influence similar to souls after all. If plain water has some etheric energy in it then it may be the case that the robots, even if they are only complicated electronic systems, can bend some ether according to their expectations. Do you have a real-world example of something like that? I don't think I've ever noticed something like it. I know at least eight people who're convinced they have psychic abilities because they remember every time their hunches or premonitions turn out right and disregard most of the times they're wrong. Although if you start actually tallying their accuracy rate they become furious which might mean they do know on some level they're not psychics. Or maybe it means they're just irritated that I don't take their claims on faith or something. [Edit for clarification] Because they believe they're psychics they sometimes successfully do things they wouldn't have tried if they didn't believe. Then they revise their memories of times when they were wrong and attribute things they figure out with normal reasoning to their gift. [/edit]
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Aug 19, 2012 15:09:03 GMT
Either you misread something or I misstated it. It isn't about forming unsupported hypotheses that turn out to be true; it's about forming an incorrect hypothesis based on data that is not consistent with the incorrect hypothesis - and the discrepancy being ignored by everyone. Like taking a list of every day it rains, which includes every day of the week at least once, and saying "As this list shows, it only rains on Tuesdays". And everyone else looks at your list showing rain on Mondays and Fridays and etc., and they all accept that it only rains on Tuesdays. For YEARS. Creating their own lists of when it rains, including rain on Sundays, and saying "See, it only rains on Tuesdays." Then suddenly one morning everyone wakes up and says "Wait a minute! Today's Thursday and it's raining! Further, all those lists say it rained on other days of the week all along! Why did we ever think it only rained on Tuesdays?" Do you have a real-world example of something like that? I don't think I've ever noticed something like it. I have read - haven't been able to confirm - that there are lots of old textbooks and scientific papers that say human cells have 22 chromosome pairs... alongside pictures of human cell nuclei showing 23 chromosome pairs, which is currently regarded as the correct number.
|
|
|
Post by Per on Aug 19, 2012 15:48:35 GMT
Never attribute to nebulous reality warping that which is adequately explained by conspiracy and pseudo-science theorists having very low standards for critical evaluation of evidence.
|
|
galileo
New Member
there are plenty of spiders!
Posts: 47
|
Post by galileo on Aug 19, 2012 16:29:05 GMT
I'm really liking the emotions Ysengrin is showing...the progression and fleshing out of his character in recent chapters has really pleased me.
AND I hadn't even thought about the implications of this whole discussion on real/unreal according to humans thing on Annie. Verrrrrry intriguing. It also kind of ties robots and etheric creatures together if it's true...both are created by humans. But robots FOR humans, while etherics for...fun?
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Aug 19, 2012 17:48:56 GMT
Do you have a real-world example of something like that? I don't think I've ever noticed something like it. It would be impossible to notice, since it would be retroactive and permanent. Although I have to admit, if I wasn't a subscriber to anthropogenic global climate change, I would say that there is certainly a quantum superuser screwing with our thermostat, because there is no way Earth was designed to be this hot. (He says, in a pool of his own sweat with all fans on high) Either you misread something or I misstated it. It isn't about forming unsupported hypotheses that turn out to be true; it's about forming an incorrect hypothesis based on data that is not consistent with the incorrect hypothesis - and the discrepancy being ignored by everyone. My apologies, I probably did misread it, but usually when someone blatantly ignores a discrepancy I chalk it up to ignorance, not radical timeline alteration. If you could provide some specific examples of what you had just mentioned, I would be fascinated. I too would like to find evidence that the time lords are meddling with our world. Then maybe I can steal that damnable phone booth and become one myself. Do you have a real-world example of something like that? I don't think I've ever noticed something like it. I have read - haven't been able to confirm - that there are lots of old textbooks and scientific papers that say human cells have 22 chromosome pairs... alongside pictures of human cell nuclei showing 23 chromosome pairs, which is currently regarded as the correct number. Well, there are three options here: 1st is that it was a misprint 2nd is that someone at Houghton Mifflin has a terrible sense of humor 3rd is that the number of chromosomes, which can be seen by any bloke with a microscope and the patience to wait for his sample to enter metaphase, were retroactively changed by an all powerful user in this computerized reality Now, I'm a big proponent of Occams Razor; the simplest solution is almost always the right one, and in this case number one seems the most likely. If we lived in a computerized reality, I wouldn't be looking for retroactive stuff, because we wouldn't be able to tell what was and what wasn't. I would be looking for glitches, failures, and parts of code where the creator got lazy. So far I haven't seen any identical black cats walk past the same door twice. Perhaps one day I will. Never attribute to nebulous reality warping that which is adequately explained by conspiracy and pseudo-science theorists having very low standards for critical evaluation of evidence. Nebulous is the perfect descriptor of this universe. The more I learn about it, the more it boggles my mind.
|
|
|
Post by legion on Aug 19, 2012 20:30:39 GMT
Occam's razor just states that the simplest solution *has to be investigated first*, not that "it is almost always the right one".
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Aug 19, 2012 23:57:13 GMT
It would be impossible to notice, since it would be retroactive and permanent. There might be secondary effects from the original event that remain and form a historical paradox because if the revision could cause obvious contradictions with reality at the time it was made then it couldn't be made. The problem would be that it is impossible to isolate such an event. Say for example that genetic testing of currently living humans determines that there was one single human male who must have fathered 1,100 or more offspring in prehistoric times. That by itself wouldn't be impossible (just difficult) but according to the fossil record the human in question would've had to have crossed both the Mediterranean and the Atlantic long before humans were thought to have sailing ships or domesticated animals. Add in a fertile voyage to India and you've got an itinerary that a standard human couldn't have accomplished in anything like a normal human lifespan with standard human transportation. We can theorize many possible explanations, including that our genetic sampling was wrong, or the man was a magic man, or a clone or alien, or that primitive humans had invented the hot-air balloon. Or it could be that our knowledge of human lifespans back then is way off. Or that the man's reproductive process had some sort of mutation that created offspring that were genetically identical (but that last one would be boring). However, if you take note that all cultures involved in this great patriarchal adventure have similar legends of a magic man who went around seducing women, and many families claim descent from him in their traditions (or alternately, claim that others are descended from him while their bloodline is pure human) then you've got a conundrum that might be the sort of paradox I described earlier. Please bear in mind I am not saying that's conclusive. And of course if you could conclusively and persuasively demonstrate that reality is retroactively malleable I think it'd come apart. And I should probably make it clear that I am not arguing for this sort of thing in real life, just trying to demonstrate that the fictional universes where such things happen are not as far removed from human experience as one might think (though I readily admit they are probably impossible). It's fun to talk about and it's good mental exercise.
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Aug 20, 2012 4:17:01 GMT
It would be impossible to notice, since it would be retroactive and permanent. There might be secondary effects from the original event that remain and form a historical paradox because if the revision could cause obvious contradictions with reality at the time it was made then it couldn't be made. The problem would be that it is impossible to isolate such an event. Say for example that genetic testing of currently living humans determines that there was one single human male who must have fathered 1,100 or more offspring in prehistoric times. That by itself wouldn't be impossible (just difficult) but according to the fossil record the human in question would've had to have crossed both the Mediterranean and the Atlantic long before humans were thought to have sailing ships or domesticated animals. Add in a fertile voyage to India and you've got an itinerary that a standard human couldn't have accomplished in anything like a normal human lifespan with standard human transportation. We can theorize many possible explanations, including that our genetic sampling was wrong, or the man was a magic man, or a clone or alien, or that primitive humans had invented the hot-air balloon. Or it could be that our knowledge of human lifespans back then is way off. Or that the man's reproductive process had some sort of mutation that created offspring that were genetically identical (but that last one would be boring). However, if you take note that all cultures involved in this great patriarchal adventure have similar legends of a magic man who went around seducing women, and many families claim descent from him in their traditions (or alternately, claim that others are descended from him while their bloodline is pure human) then you've got a conundrum that might be the sort of paradox I described earlier. Please bear in mind I am not saying that's conclusive. And of course if you could conclusively and persuasively demonstrate that reality is retroactively malleable I think it'd come apart. And I should probably make it clear that I am not arguing for this sort of thing in real life, just trying to demonstrate that the fictional universes where such things happen are not as far removed from human experience as one might think (though I readily admit they are probably impossible). It's fun to talk about and it's good mental exercise. A time traveling Casanova eh?... Now that's the way to live!
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Aug 20, 2012 6:07:13 GMT
A time traveling Casanova eh?... If we're lucky. In a fictional universe where reality is retroactively malleable, if enough people believe that a child is the son of the devil, that might actually change their DNA. Or if enough people believe they're descended from the rightful king of Scotland they might indeed be (or be indistinguishable from). Then there's the fun topic of what influence modern celebrity culture would have on this process. Was it military might that won the cold war, or was it denim and VHS porn tapes as others claim, or was it perhaps a mouse, a clown, a blonde, and a cowboy? Maybe we Americans stole the secret to renown along with rocket science from the ruins of the third reich, and after the Soviet Union weakened we no longer had to abide by a 1,000 celebrity limit treaty or something... which explains why post-glasnost there were suddenly many Americans becoming famous for no apparent reason and being on television all the time... ;D But the impact of the internet is potentially more amazing. If we can get millions or billions of humans believing the same bull and wishing for the same stuff at the same time we should be able to do all sorts of nifty stuff. If frustration and defeat play an important role in the creation of gods, then what the hell sorts of internet deities might be out there right now? Heck, the legend of the porn fairy has been around long enough to be considered a modern myth already. What surprises could the GC universe hold for us?
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Aug 20, 2012 7:12:29 GMT
A time traveling Casanova eh?... If we're lucky. In a fictional universe where reality is retroactively malleable, if enough people believe that a child is the son of the devil, that might actually change their DNA. Or if enough people believe they're descended from the rightful king of Scotland they might indeed be (or be indistinguishable from). Then there's the fun topic of what influence modern celebrity culture would have on this process. Was it military might that won the cold war, or was it denim and VHS porn tapes as others claim, or was it perhaps a mouse, a clown, a blonde, and a cowboy? Maybe we Americans stole the secret to renown along with rocket science from the ruins of the third reich, and after the Soviet Union weakened we no longer had to abide by a 1,000 celebrity limit treaty or something... which explains why post-glasnost there were suddenly many Americans becoming famous for no apparent reason and being on television all the time... ;D ...and suddenly the idea for a ridiculous stream of consciousness novel falls out the clear blue sky like a thunderbolt and strikes my brain.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Aug 20, 2012 7:41:42 GMT
Maybe we Americans stole the secret to renown along with rocket science from the ruins of the third reich, and after the Soviet Union weakened we no longer had to abide by a 1,000 celebrity limit treaty or something... which explains why post-glasnost there were suddenly many Americans becoming famous for no apparent reason and being on television all the time... ;D ...and suddenly the idea for a ridiculous stream of consciousness novel falls out the clear blue sky like a thunderbolt and strikes my brain. You may have it. The story actually begins in the early 1940s when Allied commanders noticed that Hitler propaganda speeches were being delivered over the radio in live broadcast quality all over the Axis territories. If you want to start in modern times that could be a flashback or a reveal. Remember, if you see any unguarded celebrities on the street be sure to contact Homeland Security.
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Aug 20, 2012 18:04:02 GMT
Well, there are three options here: 1st is that it was a misprint 2nd is that someone at Houghton Mifflin has a terrible sense of humor 3rd is that the number of chromosomes, which can be seen by any bloke with a microscope and the patience to wait for his sample to enter metaphase, were retroactively changed by an all powerful user in this computerized reality As for the first option, reportedly it would have been quite a few identical misprints from different authors and publishers over the course of well over a decade, with nobody catching the error or getting it right in a separate publication - until suddenly pretty much everyone noticed the error simultaneously. Assuming that the report is true, I think we can forget about a misprint. And since it was several publishers, someone with a sense of humor wouldn't explain it. Indeed. Shall we play a movie in such slow motion that we can watch the light move?
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Aug 20, 2012 21:40:22 GMT
Oh my god, I was watching that Ted Talk just yesterday! Femto-photography is incredible.
|
|
BingsF
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by BingsF on Aug 25, 2012 17:17:48 GMT
Do you have a real-world example of something like that? I don't think I've ever noticed something like it. I have read - haven't been able to confirm - that there are lots of old textbooks and scientific papers that say human cells have 22 chromosome pairs... alongside pictures of human cell nuclei showing 23 chromosome pairs, which is currently regarded as the correct number. I would say it's probable that they are referring to the 22 autosomal pairs... since the "23rd" is the XX or XY "pair", aka the sex chromosomes. Occasionally texts and scientific literature will disregard the sex chromosomes, depending on the context of what is being studied or discussed, and so refer to the "22 pairs" of chromosomes (though they should say "autosomes" to disambiguate.)
|
|
|
Post by smjjames on Aug 25, 2012 17:45:25 GMT
imaginaryfriend: Genghis Khan actually fathered hundreds of children in his lifetime, and he was a conquerer in both war and sex. So what you're saying actually did happen since there are thousands of people who can trace their genetic lineage to Genghis Khan.
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on Aug 26, 2012 1:21:01 GMT
imaginaryfriend: Genghis Khan actually fathered hundreds of children in his lifetime, and he was a conquerer in both war and sex. So what you're saying actually did happen since there are thousands of people who can trace their genetic lineage to Genghis Khan. I was thinking about a genetic study that was trying to trace back the origins of humankind that actually happened; I haven't read about it for years and may have misremembered details (though the 1,100+ offspring figure I think I recall correctly). And yes, Mao in China is another example; supposedly countless peasant families sent him their daughters to impregnate so they could have the honor of having his children in their families, and if there are some who're genetically Mao's but couldn't have been fathered by him then we've got the right sort of paradox. Not that I'm arguing for it, just making conversation. But yeah, Indrid Cold requested real-life examples so I threw out a couple possibilities. Both the impossible offspring one and the renown one go back to mythical times, possibly, though now that I think on it they may be connected. ;D
|
|