|
Post by saardvark on Mar 26, 2020 21:48:31 GMT
Heh. Think of it like taking a child to a playground in a park, and then letting it to its own devices for a while (let's assume you got carried away while contemplating the latest developments at Gunnerkrigg Court). As you then try to locate the child again, there would be some places where it is more likely to be. For example, it would be quite likely to be somewhere within 5 metres of its favorite playground structure, say a slide or maybe a carousel (high probability density) - but it may just be somewhere else. It would be quite unlikely to be within 5 metres of a certain blade of grass in the middle of a big lawn (low probability density) - but it may just happen to be in that very area. It can also tunnel through an expanse of a low-probability area towards some distant high-probability area, like an ice cream van across the big lawn. But until you spot it, all you can tell is that it's out there somewhere. You're welcome... Okay, but that basically means that particular electron could be everywhere. Just with more likely places than others. As I understand it, that would mean the very matter of our universe is governed by loose laws. Lucky for us that the difference in probability is very high, or otherwhise it would be hard for things to be. It could be anywhere, but the probabilities for most locations beyond very close are so vanishingly small as to be essentially zero (tho maybe the Smittster could tweak things a bit...). Its not that the laws are loose (they aren't really), its more that matter is a bit "fuzzy"/"wavy"/"evanescent" and space a bit "stretchy"!
|
|
|
Post by warrl on Mar 26, 2020 23:13:53 GMT
It's all wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on Mar 27, 2020 19:08:56 GMT
I'll just add that "laws" in the context of science are descriptive rather than prescriptive: they distill experimental results into summary statements of "how things seem to behave." Which is exactly what the electron probability concept says: experimentally, we find the electron in the given vicinity X percent of the time. I wouldn't say that the universe is "governed" by such "laws." "Behaves according to," maybe. If we're looking for governance, we've got to move past physics to metaphysics.
(Speaking of probability, I'm also remembering a PBS show by Brian Greene about string theory, in which he pointed out that the probability of someone walking through a wall instead of bumping into it is vanishingly small (because bodies and walls contain so many atoms that trillions upon trillions of low-probability events would all have to happen at the same time)--but not zero. Weird stuff on the macro level is not impossible, but it is so unlikely that it never happens in our experience.)
|
|
|
Post by wies on Mar 27, 2020 21:10:22 GMT
So when it comes down to micro, there is no "ought be", but "could be"?
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on Mar 28, 2020 3:09:56 GMT
I'll just add that "laws" in the context of science are descriptive rather than prescriptive: they distill experimental results into summary statements of "how things seem to behave." Which is exactly what the electron probability concept says: experimentally, we find the electron in the given vicinity X percent of the time. I wouldn't say that the universe is "governed" by such "laws." "Behaves according to," maybe. If we're looking for governance, we've got to move past physics to metaphysics. (Speaking of probability, I'm also remembering a PBS show by Brian Greene about string theory, in which he pointed out that the probability of someone walking through a wall instead of bumping into it is vanishingly small (because bodies and walls contain so many atoms that trillions upon trillions of low-probability events would all have to happen at the same time)--but not zero. Weird stuff on the macro level is not impossible, but it is so unlikely that it never happens in our experience.) Here's a wild idea - what if teleportation is just the synchronized manipulation of probabilities (ala Smitty!) such that the extremely unlikely probability that all of your particles were actually waaaaaay over there in precisely the same configuration as you are now - is actually now 100% likely. Simultaneous synchronized manipulation of quantum probabilities. Bingo! You have your Star Trek "transporter"(and analogous devices). EDIT: edited to clarify.....
|
|
|
Post by wies on Mar 28, 2020 5:54:54 GMT
So Smitty could just walk through walls if needed? Cool.
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on Mar 30, 2020 22:21:30 GMT
Sareed, the Anwyn girl's name on this page www.gunnerkrigg.com/extracomics/comic.php?c=Annie%20in%20the%20Forest%20Part%202&p=22 is probably the Irish name Saraidh, which means "excellent". (Further evidence for Irish is her use of "ma" where Annie uses "mum".) Irial's name literally means "elf". Being an American woman married to an Irish man and living in Ulster gives me the impression I could place the accent within a 50km radius. Though of course "Anwyn" is a Welsh name, and I suspect "Bo" isn't the same name as "Beau", and may not be a name at all if it's Irish "beo". I can't place "Kamlen" at all unless it's "Camlyn", and then it's English. I could go down this rabbit hole quite deeply. Edit: Camlyn sounded familiar, so I searched more. It's a place name in Wales, meaning "winding lake".
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 1, 2020 11:20:13 GMT
Sareed, the Anwyn girl's name on this page www.gunnerkrigg.com/extracomics/comic.php?c=Annie%20in%20the%20Forest%20Part%202&p=22 is probably the Irish name Saraidh, which means "excellent". (Further evidence for Irish is her use of "ma" where Annie uses "mum".) Irial's name literally means "elf". Being an American woman married to an Irish man and living in Ulster gives me the impression I could place the accent within a 50km radius. Though of course "Anwyn" is a Welsh name, and I suspect "Bo" isn't the same name as "Beau", and may not be a name at all if it's Irish "beo". I can't place "Kamlen" at all unless it's "Camlyn", and then it's English. I could go down this rabbit hole quite deeply. Edit: Camlyn sounded familiar, so I searched more. It's a place name in Wales, meaning "winding lake". And Idra also has an Irish surname!
|
|
|
Post by Polyhymnia on Apr 1, 2020 12:01:37 GMT
When Loup complains about the Court "working on something" www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=2046he says it functions "essentially opposite" to the branches Coyote constructed in the ether to "hold the Forest together" www.gunnerkrigg.com/?p=2030These etheric "branches" are described as chaotic in nature, and stronger in disarray. If you take the "opposite" literally, the Court is working on something ordered/orderly/well-structured that is stronger for being that way. It sounds like it could some sort of research project/device specifically designed to understand the ether and how it works (science is certainly orderly and stronger for being that way). Further, use of this research/device will do the opposite of "hold the Forest together" - it will literally tear it (and the ether?) apart. Others speculated along these lines at the time (todd, ctso74) but the main new thing that reading it this way suggests to me is that the Forest/ether destruction that this research might cause is unintentional... the Court is after understanding and ends up destroying in the process. To go nerdy, its a bit like measurement in quantum mechanics. A electron in an orbital exists as a probabilistic cloud (a chaotic wave function if you will) until it is measured (science introduced!) whereupon the wave function collapses (chaos destroyed!), the particle located (order established!) and you lose correspondingly some info on its momentum (mass x velocity) by Heisenbergs uncertainty principle. By just wanting to "know" the ether/Forest (science it), the Court threatens to unwittingly destroy it. Maybe this is a wild spec? “He who breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom” Gandalf ETA: should clarify, that’s not a call out! Just that if unwitting destruction is a consequence, the quote seemed fitting.
|
|
|
Post by bedinsis on Apr 17, 2020 14:57:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wies on Apr 17, 2020 16:26:08 GMT
She is very hands-on apparently!
|
|
|
Post by unbalanced on Apr 18, 2020 18:44:20 GMT
On this page before Annie runs off to the forest for the summer, she tells Renard to "stay as you are" (i.e. in stuffed animal form), and leaves shortly after. Then just before she comes back, we see him in wolf form, when technically her command should have prevented it (and we've seen before how her forgetting her commands can restrict Renard). I like to think that this implies that they've done some rules-lawyering to come up with fallbacks for when Annie is unexpectedly gone for a long time, or expectedly given she was just about to be on vacation. Something like certain commands having a timeout if they're generally harmless.
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on Apr 19, 2020 2:04:35 GMT
On this page before Annie runs off to the forest for the summer, she tells Renard to "stay as you are" (i.e. in stuffed animal form), and leaves shortly after. Then just before she comes back, we see him in wolf form, when technically her command should have prevented it (and we've seen before how her forgetting her commands can restrict Renard). I like to think that this implies that they've done some rules-lawyering to come up with fallbacks for when Annie is unexpectedly gone for a long time, or expectedly given she was just about to be on vacation. Something like certain commands having a timeout if they're generally harmless. Or he just told himself she meant "Stay as you are for now." instead of "Stay as you are forever."
|
|
|
Post by Corvo on Apr 19, 2020 16:19:00 GMT
On this page before Annie runs off to the forest for the summer, she tells Renard to "stay as you are" (i.e. in stuffed animal form), and leaves shortly after. Then just before she comes back, we see him in wolf form, when technically her command should have prevented it (and we've seen before how her forgetting her commands can restrict Renard). I like to think that this implies that they've done some rules-lawyering to come up with fallbacks for when Annie is unexpectedly gone for a long time, or expectedly given she was just about to be on vacation. Something like certain commands having a timeout if they're generally harmless. Or he just told himself she meant "Stay as you are for now." instead of "Stay as you are forever." Or that she meant only the toy form. Or Jones were able to take that order back, since Annie left Renard in her care.
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on May 12, 2020 18:06:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jda on May 13, 2020 19:11:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by waymazing123 on May 14, 2020 3:12:50 GMT
What is Reynardine saying to Annie on page 164? (Chapter 9 Bonus Page) The speech bubble reads "Why you good for nothing ____!" with the last words cutoff. Is he saying, "imbecile girl"? "impulsive girl"? Something else? Were the words cutoff on purpose or unintentionally?
|
|
|
Post by imaginaryfriend on May 14, 2020 3:47:54 GMT
What is Reynardine saying to Annie on page 164? (Chapter 9 Bonus Page) The speech bubble reads "Why you good for nothing ____!" with the last words cutoff. Is he saying, "imbecile girl"? "impulsive girl"? Something else? Were the words cutoff on purpose or unintentionally? Welcome to the forum! I think Renard's saying "imbecilic" and the speech bubble is cut off to represent that the rant he's on is cut off in the comic... but otherwise would keep going.
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on May 15, 2020 7:37:38 GMT
What is Reynardine saying to Annie on page 164? (Chapter 9 Bonus Page) The speech bubble reads "Why you good for nothing ____!" with the last words cutoff. Is he saying, "imbecile girl"? "impulsive girl"? Something else? Were the words cutoff on purpose or unintentionally? I guess it's something not exactly family friendly.
|
|
|
Post by DonDueed on May 15, 2020 13:44:03 GMT
What is Reynardine saying to Annie on page 164? (Chapter 9 Bonus Page) The speech bubble reads "Why you good for nothing ____!" with the last words cutoff. Is he saying, "imbecile girl"? "impulsive girl"? Something else? Were the words cutoff on purpose or unintentionally? Looks like "imbecilic girl!" to me. But the cutoff suggests that that was just the beginning of the rant. Warming up, you might say.
|
|
|
Post by jda on May 20, 2020 15:35:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on May 22, 2020 10:42:54 GMT
Zimmy isn't just small. She's not aging. Look at her and the others.
|
|
|
Post by IvDead on May 22, 2020 18:17:35 GMT
Zimmy isn't just small. She's not aging. Look at her and the others. We know that Zimmy can't sleep, but have we ever seen her eating or drinking? Maybe Zimmy is like Jones, but with an involuntary reality warp instead of indestructibility?
|
|
|
Post by saardvark on May 22, 2020 19:23:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Runningflame on May 23, 2020 1:36:31 GMT
Arthur's new body has round word balloons (as pointed out in the page comment)... BUT their tails still have an angular bend to them. Almost human, but not quite. Amazing.
|
|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on May 25, 2020 14:14:24 GMT
Zimmy isn't just small. She's not aging. Look at her and the others. If Zimmy isn't aging, or is aging very slowly, and Gamma is aging normally, what is going to happen when Gamma eventually pass on?
|
|
|
Post by speedwell on May 25, 2020 15:26:22 GMT
Zimmy isn't just small. She's not aging. Look at her and the others. If Zimmy isn't aging, or is aging very slowly, and Gamma is aging normally, what is going to happen when Gamma eventually pass on? That's a good question. My hypothesis is that Zimmy is a mental construction of Gamma's and represents the part of Gamma that she represses but is secretly proud of.
|
|
|
Post by Jelly Jellybean on May 25, 2020 17:44:51 GMT
If Zimmy isn't aging, or is aging very slowly, and Gamma is aging normally, what is going to happen when Gamma eventually pass on? That's a good question. My hypothesis is that Zimmy is a mental construction of Gamma's and represents the part of Gamma that she represses but is secretly proud of. That would avoid the world ending event I was thinking of.
|
|
|
Post by pyradonis on May 26, 2020 17:26:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by warrl on May 27, 2020 4:08:36 GMT
On this page before Annie runs off to the forest for the summer, she tells Renard to "stay as you are" (i.e. in stuffed animal form), and leaves shortly after. Then just before she comes back, we see him in wolf form, when technically her command should have prevented it (and we've seen before how her forgetting her commands can restrict Renard). I like to think that this implies that they've done some rules-lawyering to come up with fallbacks for when Annie is unexpectedly gone for a long time, or expectedly given she was just about to be on vacation. Something like certain commands having a timeout if they're generally harmless. Or he just told himself she meant "Stay as you are for now." instead of "Stay as you are forever."
|
|