|
|
Post by flowsthead on May 13, 2020 19:18:56 GMT
Sure, maybe some of this she could rationalize, but a lot of she can't. Even if she'll never understand magic and it bothers her, why this particular thing? Because those other things don't really affect her on an emotional level and are also ultimately mundane in their implications and utility. Her mom's barrier magic or Paz' ability aren't fundamentally that different from an interest in field and track, biochemistry or being vegan, especially since both use their magic affinity for relatively understandable, scientific pursuits. Hell, even the magic used to seal Jeannie is ultimately very utilitarian and logical. This time, her best friend is suddenly two distinct, separate people with whom she has two separate relationships and experiences. There's no indication that this is a permanent development, no indication why that happened and what for, or what does it entail - one of the Annies might be a fake, it might be time shenanigans at play, or perhaps cloning, or multiverses. And she likely feels guilt over her not getting which one is "her" Annie. The afterlife is mundane in its implications and utility? I feel like you ignored the afterlife part with Mort, which doesn't apply at all to the things you were describing. I would also remind everyone that one of the first things that Annie did with Coyote was touch the Moon, which she then showed to Kat. There is no rational explanation for that. Annie's fingerprints are on the Moon. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 13, 2020 19:43:48 GMT
That's not a very scientific attitude, Miss Kat. If something has happened, then it is indeed possible. Therefore you should not be stating that it is NOT possible but instead be asking HOW it is possible. I don't think Kat can rationally take that position... that's what I was trying to get at before but maybe didn't express clearly... I think Kat should be able to copy someone using etheric tech and therefore can conceptualize ways that Antimony was duplicated; even if she can't explain every single aspect of how it could be done she could generate a satisfactory explanation for herself, a story about how it was done and possible paths to undoing it, but I think we can infer the experiment(s) she ran indicate that none of the approaches she can generate were used at all. Likely that means every possible way that Kat can conceptualize can be ruled out. It's like every time Kat looks at Antimonies she's confronted with a painful dilemma; either Kat has made a grievous error in theory or methodology, and despite furious work she can't figure out how, or her understanding of how the Gunnerverse works is fundamentally flawed.* If this was just a minor thing she could probably ignore it, but since it's her close friend Antimony she can't. To put it another way: My guess is that what "Loup" did is at odds with Kat's understanding of fundamental forces and causality. Every time Kat looks at Antimony "Loup" force-feeds Kat that big poop sandwich over and over. The person feeling like she's in the wrong universe/timeline is Kat because she isn't in the universe she thought she lived in. And how/if Kat resolves this situation and/or how she feels about it will be interesting. Dealing with the unexplainable and reconciling magical thinking** and science is one of the themes of the comic. *For the Gunnerverse I'd include a genuine paradox (literally, something that is impossible having happened) in with a flawed theoretical understanding because magic and the ether exists there. Your mileage may vary. ** "Magical thinking" for lack of a better term; don't read too much into that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on May 13, 2020 19:59:26 GMT
I don't think Kat can rationally take that position... [...]either Kat has made a grievous error in theory or methodology, and despite furious work she can't figure out how, or her understanding of how the Gunnerverse works is fundamentally flawed.* These two things are exactly why I said she isn't engaging the issue with a scientific attitude, tho'. Since she is claiming the readily available evidence cannot be real despite no other evidence to the contrary, she is already taking an irrational position. And since she does have this evidence that her understanding of the universe is flawed or at the very least incomplete, her methodology should be to alter her understanding to fit the new evidence rather than proclaim the new evidence to be invalid just because it doesn't fit her preconceived notions. That it happened is indisputable. How it happened and how it can be changed is the important part from both a knowledge-positive and a practical point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on May 13, 2020 20:56:33 GMT
Quoting oneself is still weird but Follow-up nerd post: So, we have a classic philosophical problem here. In cases where 1 person splits into 2 people, if we are to continue believing Leibniz's Law, then neither new person is identical to the person before the split. That is to say, if Fannie and Courtney are BOTH split off from Annie, then neither of them gets to be Annie. That would mean that Annie has effectively died. One contemporary way of getting over this issue is to posit that neither of the new people are identical to the old person, but that the old person 'survives' in the two new people. So, it's not quite identicality, and the old person is not quite alive, but they are better than dead, in that they at least get to survive. (Those curious about this should read Derek Parfit, who was a nice man, and passed away only recently. He has lots of good writing on ethics and metaphysics that is accessible). The other option might be to give up on Leibniz's Law. But I really don't recommend that; it makes your metaphysics kind of ugly, unless you accept some form of multi-valued logic, which is messy and not fun to work with. This last option might still resonate with Tony though, since he is a scientist, and probably a fan of quantum mechanics, which has weirder things in it than multi-valued logic. So by Tony's lights Annie might well just be two people now, and he may be more fine with it than the average person (or the average philosopher, who might take the split as a tragedy). I have to admit I am now realizing maybe, on my own theory of personal identity, it might be the case that Annie is dead. I am not wise in the ways of philosophy, but you note Leibniz's law needs to relax when considering the time axis... here we may have multiple time axes, which have been forced to intersect by Loup (ie, one or more of the Annies borrowed/pushed into this timeline from others). It would seem Leibniz's law may need to be even more relaxed in such a case, perhaps to the point of curling up and taking a nap! |
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on May 13, 2020 21:00:53 GMT
Yup, this definitely sounds like what Zimmy was talking about, to me. I think that between her giving the robots a presence in the ether and her attempts to wrap her mind around this whole "Annie has been shifted" business, something has been niggling inside her head and it's only getting more insistent. Zimmy did say that Annie needed to keep an eye on her... I'm starting to wonder if Kat's inability to tear her focus away from this is just a symptom of a change that's been coming to fruition within her, much like I think the same of that light that Loup sees. Maybe you are implying this, but .. what if the light that Loup sees when he looks deeply into the Court and what it is up to, is not the Omega project, but Kat's gradual transformation to godhood? [wildspec? has someone raised this before?] |
|
|
|
Post by migrantworker on May 13, 2020 21:04:37 GMT
I don't think Kat can rationally take that position... [...]either Kat has made a grievous error in theory or methodology, and despite furious work she can't figure out how, or her understanding of how the Gunnerverse works is fundamentally flawed.* These two things are exactly why I said she isn't engaging the issue with a scientific attitude, tho'. Since she is claiming the readily available evidence cannot be real despite no other evidence to the contrary, she is already taking an irrational position. And since she does have this evidence that her understanding of the universe is flawed or at the very least incomplete, her methodology should be to alter her understanding to fit the new evidence rather than proclaim the new evidence to be invalid just because it doesn't fit her preconceived notions. That it happened is indisputable. How it happened and how it can be changed is the important part from both a knowledge-positive and a practical point of view. Let me throw a spanner into the works then... 1) It has happened. 2) It is impossible. 1) and 2) cannot both be true at the same time. So one of these must be false. What if 1) is false? Honestly. Suppose Kat, through the work she did, does have evidence that by some babble babble strange words etheric gimmick or whatever Annies are not what they appear to be. Just as an example, and I am NOT saying that this is my actual speculation, let's say what we see in the comic is in fact this third timeline in which there is no Annie at all. How would Kat even break it to them? |
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on May 13, 2020 21:07:27 GMT
Oh, Kat, Kat... You have already figured out quantum teleportation on a large scale, now you just have to figure out how to not destroy the information at the source object in the process and you're done! PS: I just hope you've never used your teleporter on living beings or objects that holds consciousness (i.e. robot brains). I know you're smart enough to realize that quantum teleport = destroy the source + recreate exact copy at target I guess it depends on what your definition of "you" is.... is an exact copy of you, "you"? Ultimately, though, quantum physics would suggest that an exact copy at the quantum level is not possible (or at least extremely improbable). So each teleportation event would gradually degrade the copy, and be slightly less "you" than the original. Sounds risky.... and the "destruction of the source" then implies the start of a slow murder of the individual. I wonder if repeated teleportation (leading to DNA transcription errors along the line) could lead to mutations, cancer? I guess there are risks involved in any transportation process tho... |
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on May 13, 2020 21:29:04 GMT
Maybe the thing is... Kat can probably envision how to make a physical copy of someone. But Courtney and Frannie aren't exact copies; arguably they are actual Annies from two separate timelines (one of which may be Kat's present one, depending on how you interpret the arbitrator's comments). And I guess Kat cant imagine how to force different "world-lines", essentially different universes running in parallel, to intersect.
|
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 13, 2020 21:30:07 GMT
I don't think Kat can rationally take that position... [...]either Kat has made a grievous error in theory or methodology, and despite furious work she can't figure out how, or her understanding of how the Gunnerverse works is fundamentally flawed.* These two things are exactly why I said she isn't engaging the issue with a scientific attitude, tho'. Since she is claiming the readily available evidence cannot be real despite no other evidence to the contrary, she is already taking an irrational position. And since she does have this evidence that her understanding of the universe is flawed or at the very least incomplete, her methodology should be to alter her understanding to fit the new evidence rather than proclaim the new evidence to be invalid just because it doesn't fit her preconceived notions. That it happened is indisputable. How it happened and how it can be changed is the important part from both a knowledge-positive and a practical point of view. The key problem is the etherial tenet. Philosophically, the etheric tenet is infinitely reducible but never goes away. It can be minimized, chased into a corner and swept under a rug but it will always exist in the Gunnerverse. Kat's previous worldview is irreconcilable with the reality of these two Antimonies which makes Antimonies in their current state undigestable. In order to admit to the indisputable Kat will have to bow to the absurd, give up or modify something that she relies on to form her satisfying and useful worldview and she doesn't really have the philosophical tools to do so... yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on May 13, 2020 22:22:23 GMT
Kat just needs to merge herself with all her other selves in other realities. Eventually all the Annies will be her Annie.
|
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on May 13, 2020 22:34:29 GMT
No, sent back to the timeline where she was taken from. Ooh, that would be interesting. I mean, her original timeline has now carried on without her for some time. And then, out of the blue she returns to... well, to what? And how much exactly of her would return - say, does she retain her memories of time spent in the currently portrayed timeline, or the psychic link to Renard? Huh, good question. I always assumed she would keep her memories because she kept them before, but just now realized that these memories were from before the timeline was split, so...regardless in what timeline we are now, the memories from before the split will always be the correct ones. I guess she would not keep the link with Renard across timelines, and not have one with the other Renard, as that Renard will not have become her familiar. However he would probably agree to find a way to become her familiar in that timeline too. The afterlife is mundane in its implications and utility? I feel like you ignored the afterlife part with Mort, which doesn't apply at all to the things you were describing. I would also remind everyone that one of the first things that Annie did with Coyote was touch the Moon, which she then showed to Kat. There is no rational explanation for that. Annie's fingerprints are on the Moon. Right! Kat did not believe anything to be impossible that happened in the RotD (or Mort's existence as a ghost in the first place) either, even though it concerned the fate of a dear friend. Regarding the fingerprint on the moon, however, the Court "found" an explanation for that. Maybe you are implying this, but .. what if the light that Loup sees when he looks deeply into the Court and what it is up to, is not the Omega project, but Kat's gradual transformation to godhood? [wildspec? has someone raised this before?] I think it is firmly on second place of all theories regarding that light.  1) It has happened. 2) It is impossible. 1) and 2) cannot both be true at the same time. So one of these must be false. What if 1) is false? Then something has obviously still happened and it would be her scientific duty to find out what. Anyway, all evidence, from the Annie's obvious physical existence to both of them having all knowledge the "real" Annie is supposed to have, to both of them sharing the link with Renard she is supposed to have to Arbiter Saslamel and his interpreter confirming that they are the same person doubled through a timeline split, points to that being exactly what has happened. What points against it, except for Kat not knowing any precedents? Oh, Kat, Kat... You have already figured out quantum teleportation on a large scale, now you just have to figure out how to not destroy the information at the source object in the process and you're done! PS: I just hope you've never used your teleporter on living beings or objects that holds consciousness (i.e. robot brains). I know you're smart enough to realize that quantum teleport = destroy the source + recreate exact copy at target I guess it depends on what your definition of "you" is.... is an exact copy of you, "you"? Ultimately, though, quantum physics would suggest that an exact copy at the quantum level is not possible (or at least extremely improbable). So each teleportation event would gradually degrade the copy, and be slightly less "you" than the original. Sounds risky.... and the "destruction of the source" then implies the start of a slow murder of the individual. I wonder if repeated teleportation (leading to DNA transcription errors along the line) could lead to mutations, cancer? I guess there are risks involved in any transportation process tho... Good thought. Well, billions of people get into cars every day, even though that mode of transportation also has a pretty good chance of getting oneself killed or injured. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on May 14, 2020 0:01:53 GMT
Suppose Kat, through the work she did, does have evidence that by some babble babble strange words etheric gimmick or whatever Annies are not what they appear to be. Then she needs to submit her findings so they can be independently verified and peer reviewed. If they turn out to be false but she continues to hang onto them, she'll start getting into "brain in a jar" territory. The key problem is the etherial tenet. Philosophically, the etheric tenet is infinitely reducible but never goes away. It can be minimized, chased into a corner and swept under a rug but it will always exist in the Gunnerverse. Kat's previous worldview is irreconcilable with the reality of these two Antimonies which makes Antimonies in their current state undigestable. In order to admit to the indisputable Kat will have to bow to the absurd, give up or modify something that she relies on to form her satisfying and useful worldview and she doesn't really have the philosophical tools to do so... yet. Philosophically, all scientific tenets are also infinitely reducible. We don't know every single thing about the cosmos after all, and it's quite possible that we actually physically can't. Therefore, science is not fundamentally different in this aspect from magic in GKC. But we don't need full and complete 100% total knowledge of something in order to understand and use it. We don't, for example, have to understand everything about how atoms work in order to create an internal combustion engine despite the fact that an internal combustion engine is made up entirely of atoms. The problem with Kat - and to a great degree, the Court at large - is that for a long time now, she has been ascribing to a prescriptive view of science. For her and the Court, the rules as they know them are THE Rules, and anything that goes against them is either wrong, unimportant, or a trick of some kind. This is, again, not a proper scientific outlook, despite it being the default mode of many real life scientifically-minded people. If she and the Court weren't so slavishly tied to their particular dogma of knowledge, they would realize that two different sets of rules can be equally valid and even interact in the same space without contradiction. Because that is what's happening in their universe, they just need to accept the evidence that's right there in front of them, then set about mapping the second set's rules on its own terms rather than trying to cram it forcefully into their preexisting models. In doing so, they would further expand their knowledge set so that science would encompass both classical and etheric physics, because that's how science is supposed to work. You're supposed to make your theory match the facts, not try to force the facts to conform to your theory. If she truly doesn't have this particular part of the scientific method down, however, I would put the blame on the Court for teaching her wrong, which is undoubtedly exactly what happened. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 14, 2020 0:14:32 GMT
The key problem is the etherial tenet. Philosophically, the etheric tenet is infinitely reducible but never goes away. It can be minimized, chased into a corner and swept under a rug but it will always exist in the Gunnerverse. Kat's previous worldview is irreconcilable with the reality of these two Antimonies which makes Antimonies in their current state undigestable. In order to admit to the indisputable Kat will have to bow to the absurd, give up or modify something that she relies on to form her satisfying and useful worldview and she doesn't really have the philosophical tools to do so... yet. Philosophically, all scientific tenets are also infinitely reducible. We don't know every single thing about the cosmos after all, and it's quite possible that we actually physically can't. Therefore, science is not fundamentally different in this aspect from magic in GKC. But we don't need full and complete 100% total knowledge of something in order to understand and use it. We don't, for example, have to understand everything about how atoms work in order to create an internal combustion engine despite the fact that an internal combustion engine is made up entirely of atoms. The problem with Kat - and to a great degree, the Court at large - is that for a long time now, she has been ascribing to a prescriptive view of science. For her and the Court, the rules as they know them are THE Rules, and anything that goes against them is either wrong, unimportant, or a trick of some kind. This is, again, not a proper scientific outlook, despite it being the default mode of many real life scientifically-minded people. If she and the Court weren't so slavishly tied to their particular dogma of knowledge, they would realize that two different sets of rules can be equally valid and even interact in the same space without contradiction. Because that is what's happening in their universe, they just need to accept the evidence that's right there in front of them, then set about mapping the second set's rules on its own terms rather than trying to cram it forcefully into their preexisting models. In doing so, they would further expand their knowledge set so that science would encompass both classical and etheric physics, because that's how science is supposed to work. You're supposed to make your theory match the facts, not try to force the facts to conform to your theory. If she truly doesn't have this particular part of the scientific method down, however, I would put the blame on the Court for teaching her wrong, which is undoubtedly exactly what happened. Whut, big powerful institution offering free education maleducate student in scientific method? Teach self-serving dogma? That unpossible!  |
|
|
|
Post by migrantworker on May 14, 2020 1:07:39 GMT
Ooh, that would be interesting. I mean, her original timeline has now carried on without her for some time. And then, out of the blue she returns to... well, to what? And how much exactly of her would return - say, does she retain her memories of time spent in the currently portrayed timeline, or the psychic link to Renard? Huh, good question. I always assumed she would keep her memories because she kept them before, but just now realized that these memories were from before the timeline was split, so...regardless in what timeline we are now, the memories from before the split will always be the correct ones. I guess she would not keep the link with Renard across timelines, and not have one with the other Renard, as that Renard will not have become her familiar. However he would probably agree to find a way to become her familiar in that timeline too. What I mostly had in mind, and should have stressed out more, are the wider consequences. The timeline which had its Annie removed, also did not have an Annie return to the Court with a message of truce. Instead, it had an emissary going off to negotiate with an enemy and disappearing - a very hostile act. In that timeline, the conflict has every opportunity to continue to rage, instead of smouldering like it does in the main timeline. In other words, in that timeline there may be much less left of the Court, or of the Forest, or both, with all the secondary consequences to follow. 1) It has happened. 2) It is impossible. 1) and 2) cannot both be true at the same time. So one of these must be false. What if 1) is false? Then something has obviously still happened and it would be her scientific duty to find out what. Anyway, all evidence, from the Annie's obvious physical existence to both of them having all knowledge the "real" Annie is supposed to have, to both of them sharing the link with Renard she is supposed to have to Arbiter Saslamel and his interpreter confirming that they are the same person doubled through a timeline split, points to that being exactly what has happened. What points against it, except for Kat not knowing any precedents? No idea. Heh, now that would be magic as per Zimmy's definition, wouldn't it? But more seriously, I threw this into the forum because wife has no interest in comics, children are too young for a conversation that abstract, and I personally enjoy bouncing ideas off other people and seeing if they have enough merits to stand on. |
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on May 14, 2020 4:31:47 GMT
This is, again, not a proper scientific outlook, despite it being the default mode of many real life scientifically-minded people. You're supposed to make your theory match the facts, not try to force the facts to conform to your theory. And sometimes, though you can't imagine why, the fact is that the universe actually does want you to say 'Wingardium Leviosa'. |
|
|
|
Post by jda on May 14, 2020 5:30:22 GMT
Quoting Harry Potter: "shocked at the idea of pointing to a section of reality and calling it unscientific"
|
|
|
|
Post by bnpederson on May 14, 2020 8:06:52 GMT
Maybe it's just me, but does the wording of today's comic seem weird?
Specifically this bit:
Kat: Ever since the run-in with the arbitrator this is all I can think about!
Annie: What's that?
Kat: This! [Pointing to the Annies] This is impossible!
Who would respond to "This is all I can think about" with "What's that?" in English? I'd think it would more naturally be "What's 'this'?" or "What do you mean by 'this'" or "What do you mean" or "What are you talking about" or any other number of things. If someone uses an undefined "this" without pointing to something a response of "what's that" is just... wrong, to my reading.
|
|
|
|
Post by OrzBrain on May 14, 2020 14:47:13 GMT
I see Kat has finally realized that one or more of the Annies are actually Coyote. Now she just has to realize that she herself is also Coyote and she should be well on her way to figuring things out. Dealing with entities that can instance and fork off nearly perfect simulations of reality and everyone in it can be a pain.
-- Charles Stross
|
|
|
|
Post by snowdemonakuma on May 14, 2020 19:25:29 GMT
Maybe it's just me, but does the wording of today's comic seem weird? Specifically this bit: Kat: Ever since the run-in with the arbitrator this is all I can think about! Annie: What's that?Kat: This! [Pointing to the Annies] This is impossible! Who would respond to "This is all I can think about" with "What's that?" in English? I'd think it would more naturally be "What's 'this'?" or "What do you mean by 'this'" or "What do you mean" or "What are you talking about" or any other number of things. If someone uses an undefined "this" without pointing to something a response of "what's that" is just... wrong, to my reading. Hi I registered just to make this post, be proud and/or terrified. So, firstly: it doesn't matter at all. As long as your interlocutor groks what you're saying, you have Englished correctly, and damn the rules. Secondly: Kat and Annie's exchange is perfectly grammatically valid anyway. Kat used the Singular Proximal Demonstrative to reference the object of her sentence. Annie used the Singular Distal Demonstrative to reference the same object. Kat used the Singular Proximal Demonstrative to once again reference that same object. This is fine because this (the Singular Proximal Demonstrative) is used to refer to things that are close to the speaker. Things that are right here, or they're holding, or they're thinking about. That (the Singular Distal Demonstrative) is used to refer to things that are apart from the speaker - things that are over there, or held by someone else, or inside someone else's head. To put it another way, this is first person, and that is second person*. *This is not completely accurate but it's Close Enough for explanatory purposes. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on May 15, 2020 7:49:13 GMT
Suppose Kat, through the work she did, does have evidence that by some babble babble strange words etheric gimmick or whatever Annies are not what they appear to be. Then she needs to submit her findings so they can be independently verified and peer reviewed. If they turn out to be false but she continues to hang onto them, she'll start getting into "brain in a jar" territory. The key problem is the etherial tenet. Philosophically, the etheric tenet is infinitely reducible but never goes away. It can be minimized, chased into a corner and swept under a rug but it will always exist in the Gunnerverse. Kat's previous worldview is irreconcilable with the reality of these two Antimonies which makes Antimonies in their current state undigestable. In order to admit to the indisputable Kat will have to bow to the absurd, give up or modify something that she relies on to form her satisfying and useful worldview and she doesn't really have the philosophical tools to do so... yet. Philosophically, all scientific tenets are also infinitely reducible. We don't know every single thing about the cosmos after all, and it's quite possible that we actually physically can't. Therefore, science is not fundamentally different in this aspect from magic in GKC. But we don't need full and complete 100% total knowledge of something in order to understand and use it. We don't, for example, have to understand everything about how atoms work in order to create an internal combustion engine despite the fact that an internal combustion engine is made up entirely of atoms. The problem with Kat - and to a great degree, the Court at large - is that for a long time now, she has been ascribing to a prescriptive view of science. For her and the Court, the rules as they know them are THE Rules, and anything that goes against them is either wrong, unimportant, or a trick of some kind. This is, again, not a proper scientific outlook, despite it being the default mode of many real life scientifically-minded people. If she and the Court weren't so slavishly tied to their particular dogma of knowledge, they would realize that two different sets of rules can be equally valid and even interact in the same space without contradiction. Because that is what's happening in their universe, they just need to accept the evidence that's right there in front of them, then set about mapping the second set's rules on its own terms rather than trying to cram it forcefully into their preexisting models. In doing so, they would further expand their knowledge set so that science would encompass both classical and etheric physics, because that's how science is supposed to work. You're supposed to make your theory match the facts, not try to force the facts to conform to your theory. If she truly doesn't have this particular part of the scientific method down, however, I would put the blame on the Court for teaching her wrong, which is undoubtedly exactly what happened. I can't find the page right now, but wasn't that sort of adressed in-comic as well, when Jones and Annie agreed that "for a scientific school there is much here that science can't explain"?
Huh, good question. I always assumed she would keep her memories because she kept them before, but just now realized that these memories were from before the timeline was split, so...regardless in what timeline we are now, the memories from before the split will always be the correct ones. I guess she would not keep the link with Renard across timelines, and not have one with the other Renard, as that Renard will not have become her familiar. However he would probably agree to find a way to become her familiar in that timeline too. What I mostly had in mind, and should have stressed out more, are the wider consequences. The timeline which had its Annie removed, also did not have an Annie return to the Court with a message of truce. Instead, it had an emissary going off to negotiate with an enemy and disappearing - a very hostile act. In that timeline, the conflict has every opportunity to continue to rage, instead of smouldering like it does in the main timeline. In other words, in that timeline there may be much less left of the Court, or of the Forest, or both, with all the secondary consequences to follow. Huh, right. In that timeline, they probably found out whether Loup was bluffing here. |
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 15, 2020 9:18:39 GMT
I can't find the page right now, but wasn't that sort of adressed in-comic as well, when Jones and Annie agreed that "for a scientific school there is much here that science can't explain"? [edit] Also: Welcome to the forum, snowdemonakuma [/edit] |
|
|
|
Post by jda on May 15, 2020 14:22:58 GMT
Hi I registered just to make this post, be proud and/or terrified. That has been the fate of so many over the years, We all came to Nerd about, but stayed for the weird and Special Threads. Welcome to the Ether side. |
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on May 15, 2020 18:37:44 GMT
Maybe it's just me, but does the wording of today's comic seem weird? Specifically this bit: Kat: Ever since the run-in with the arbitrator this is all I can think about! Annie: What's that?Kat: This! [Pointing to the Annies] This is impossible! Who would respond to "This is all I can think about" with "What's that?" in English? I'd think it would more naturally be "What's 'this'?" or "What do you mean by 'this'" or "What do you mean" or "What are you talking about" or any other number of things. If someone uses an undefined "this" without pointing to something a response of "what's that" is just... wrong, to my reading. As an alternative to snowdemonakuma 's explanation (which is pretty accurate, especially the first part), I would add that "What's that?" is a stock phrase for asking "What are you talking about?" Example: "I've been thinking about something..." "What's that?" I can see how it would be a bit odd/confusing for the "that" to refer to a "this," but I also didn't notice anything strange about the dialogue when I first read it. (The thing that sounded odd to me, actually, was Kat saying "This" (singular) while pointing to two people. Of course, she meant "This situation," and saying "These" would definitely not work... I think in her position I would have made a gesture with an open palm, toward the Annies, moving in circles, as if to indicate an imaginary sphere containing both of them.) |
|
donna
New Member
Posts: 34 
|
Post by donna on May 15, 2020 19:43:34 GMT
Sure, maybe some of this she could rationalize, but a lot of she can't. Even if she'll never understand magic and it bothers her, why this particular thing? Because those other things don't really affect her on an emotional level and are also ultimately mundane in their implications and utility. Her mom's barrier magic or Paz' ability aren't fundamentally that different from an interest in field and track, biochemistry or being vegan, especially since both use their magic affinity for relatively understandable, scientific pursuits. Hell, even the magic used to seal Jeannie is ultimately very utilitarian and logical. This time, her best friend is suddenly two distinct, separate people with whom she has two separate relationships and experiences. There's no indication that this is a permanent development, no indication why that happened and what for, or what does it entail - one of the Annies might be a fake, it might be time shenanigans at play, or perhaps cloning, or multiverses. And she likely feels guilt over her not getting which one is "her" Annie. This comes closest to what I am thinking. See, we didn’t believe it either, as the audience. Then we watched as our Forest Annie was convinced and as Eglamore and everyone else in the story slowly agreed to accept it. Funny though. Tony (alone) just didn’t seem to blink. (Maybe Jones too, but she is different.) That, all by itself, is odd, the Tony thing... But Kat is still right where we all were when Annie found Annie. She is actually freaked out that maybe neither is the real one and her real Annie is trapped. Paz gets it. She gets why Kat is upset. She doesn’t trust either of the Annies. But she does need to lay off a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by The Anarch on May 15, 2020 19:54:08 GMT
As an alternative to snowdemonakuma 's explanation (which is pretty accurate, especially the first part), I would add that "What's that?" is a stock phrase for asking "What are you talking about?" Example: "I've been thinking about something..." "What's that?" I can see how it would be a bit odd/confusing for the "that" to refer to a "this," but I also didn't notice anything strange about the dialogue when I first read it. Nothing seems odd about anything in the English language until you actually start paying attention to it. Then it's weirdness all the way down. |
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on May 15, 2020 22:29:20 GMT
Because those other things don't really affect her on an emotional level and are also ultimately mundane in their implications and utility. Her mom's barrier magic or Paz' ability aren't fundamentally that different from an interest in field and track, biochemistry or being vegan, especially since both use their magic affinity for relatively understandable, scientific pursuits. Hell, even the magic used to seal Jeannie is ultimately very utilitarian and logical. This time, her best friend is suddenly two distinct, separate people with whom she has two separate relationships and experiences. There's no indication that this is a permanent development, no indication why that happened and what for, or what does it entail - one of the Annies might be a fake, it might be time shenanigans at play, or perhaps cloning, or multiverses. And she likely feels guilt over her not getting which one is "her" Annie. This comes closest to what I am thinking. See, we didn’t believe it either, as the audience. Then we watched as our Forest Annie was convinced and as Eglamore and everyone else in the story slowly agreed to accept it. Funny though. Tony (alone) just didn’t seem to blink. (Maybe Jones too, but she is different.) That, all by itself, is odd, the Tony thing... But Kat is still right where we all were when Annie found Annie. She is actually freaked out that maybe neither is the real one and her real Annie is trapped. Paz gets it. She gets why Kat is upset. She doesn’t trust either of the Annies. But she does need to lay off a bit. Actually, rereading "Loup's Trick" and "Dealing with HER" Kat seems to be more relaxed than many other characters. She also seems to quickly accept that both Annies are real, talking to both of them like she would talk to Annie before. And then she pulls that trick to force both Annies to work together and learn to get along, seeming very happy that it worked. Would she have gone through the trouble if she were believing one Annie was not real, or not trusting the Annies? It's only after meeting the Arbiter that she starts to freak out.
|
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on May 16, 2020 15:25:56 GMT
This comes closest to what I am thinking. See, we didn’t believe it either, as the audience. Then we watched as our Forest Annie was convinced and as Eglamore and everyone else in the story slowly agreed to accept it. Funny though. Tony (alone) just didn’t seem to blink. (Maybe Jones too, but she is different.) That, all by itself, is odd, the Tony thing... But Kat is still right where we all were when Annie found Annie. She is actually freaked out that maybe neither is the real one and her real Annie is trapped. Paz gets it. She gets why Kat is upset. She doesn’t trust either of the Annies. But she does need to lay off a bit. Actually, rereading "Loup's Trick" and "Dealing with HER" Kat seems to be more relaxed than many other characters. She also seems to quickly accept that both Annies are real, talking to both of them like she would talk to Annie before. And then she pulls that trick to force both Annies to work together and learn to get along, seeming very happy that it worked. Would she have gone through the trouble if she were believing one Annie was not real, or not trusting the Annies? It's only after meeting the Arbiter that she starts to freak out.
yeah, when the Annies seemed to be her Annie, somehow split in two or time shifted, she could deal with it. But if one or both of the current Annies are not her Annie, and her Annie might be lost somewhere/sometime/some-multiverse else or even, gulp, dead!, Kat is freaking maximally.... |
|
|
|
Post by arkadi on May 18, 2020 8:48:02 GMT
And a cookie to you, friend Toldya guys! |
|
|
|
Post by netherdan on May 18, 2020 12:30:09 GMT
Kat just needs to merge herself with all her other selves in other realities. Eventually all the Annies will be her Annie.
In doing so, she would essentially become a 4th dimensional being. Just one dimension away from time travel being a literal walk in the park! I guess it depends on what your definition of "you" is.... is an exact copy of you, "you"? Ultimately, though, quantum physics would suggest that an exact copy at the quantum level is not possible (or at least extremely improbable). So each teleportation event would gradually degrade the copy, and be slightly less "you" than the original. Sounds risky.... and the "destruction of the source" then implies the start of a slow murder of the individual. I wonder if repeated teleportation (leading to DNA transcription errors along the line) could lead to mutations, cancer? I guess there are risks involved in any transportation process tho... Good thought. Well, billions of people get into cars every day, even though that mode of transportation also has a pretty good chance of getting oneself killed or injured. Well, it's not like every car ride is a guaranteed killing of oneself for the sake of a new self with that one's appearance, memories and personality being instantly somewhere else. Teleportation is weird and terrifying! |
|
