1190: "Time"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
kenmelken
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:28 am UTC
Location: Svithjod

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby kenmelken » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:35 pm UTC

I agree that the OTT has been rather chat-roomish lately. =/

EDIT: HA! But with the dawn of my Eighth Papacy, perhaps I can fix that. :)
Decree: We need more discussion on hedgehog vs. tenrec. And dancing. Yes, we need more dancing.
And to defend myself against the insolence displayed 2 NewPages ago, Inquisitors who disregard papal decrees shall be disinquisitored.
Last edited by kenmelken on Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:42 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
In Svithjod, there stands a rock. It is 100 miles high and 100 miles wide. Once every 1000 years a little bird comes to this rock to sharpen its beak. One time, I changed just the last sentence of this signature, and lots of you noticed. Image

User avatar
thirds
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:16 pm UTC
Location: Tenrec Burrow NP1254

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby thirds » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:37 pm UTC

On topic: did they kill the Madagascar hedgehog? Maybe it's like a moth, you touch it and it can't be molpy anymore.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4888
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby HES » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:42 pm UTC

Ah man, I take a (much needed) internet break and miss a prilpy mockly4?

And you should all be ashamed of yourselves for the tiny text incident a few newpages back. Here's some punishment:
Spoiler:
Image
mscha wrote:(No ketchup report from me. Y'all have degenerated into a chat room, so what is there to say about that?)

At least it made for a very quick 20-np ketchup

4Cuegan need some new adjectives.
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
charlie_grumbles
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:07 pm UTC
Location: Self Imposed Exile

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby charlie_grumbles » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:48 pm UTC

Can someone post a set of links to AluisioASG's Last Time Waiter... so it can be followed easily? Post to the wiki, I think. I often have to skip over it in the interest of time and then it is hard to go back. Even a list of page numbers that contain the various chapters would help. Thanks.
Lurking. Watching. Thinking. Writing. Waiting.
-- Charlie Grumbles

User avatar
mscha
Posts: 6902
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:21 pm UTC
Location: NL
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby mscha » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:49 pm UTC

Here's an updated Pokeymation:
Image
41 frames and counting! As others have mentioned: the (Inside) time between frames is, for some of these, shorter than we've ever seen. I used a .4sH delay, and much of the final part still seems to be slow-motion.

I know I've said before that Pokey was attackONG, but I've changed my mind: I now think that it simply rolled up to a ball, but forgot it was sitting on that rock, and fell off. (Not the smartest Pokey in the Molp, perhaps...)

Edit: no Pokey movement whatsoever since Cueball put it down. I'm starting to get worried...
List¹ of all Frames of Time and after Time.
New here? Questions? Check the wiki.
Don't worry, feed molpies⁴.
Image
Holy Croce
Default footnotes; standard OTT-np2166m 1.2:
Spoiler:
Image
Image

User avatar
TheMinim
Posts: 939
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:47 pm UTC
Location: In The Present
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby TheMinim » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:57 pm UTC

*dances*
Titled TheMinimastic as of NP 1610.
Hi Blitzers! And non-blitzers!
Official owner of NewPage 1572, and official co-owner of NewPage 2087 along with NoMouse.

User avatar
dreiarmumig
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 1:33 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby dreiarmumig » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:58 pm UTC

kenmelken wrote:Decree: We need more discussion on hedgehog vs. tenrec. And dancing. Yes, we need more dancing.

Here, have a sorta-dancing hedgehog.
Image


ETA: Also, this.
Spoiler:
Image

Source: http://animalsdancingonfood.tumblr.com
Last edited by dreiarmumig on Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:03 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jovialbard » Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:59 pm UTC

Meeting papal requirements (nsfw?):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M17aG_Po2Y
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

User avatar
charlie_grumbles
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:07 pm UTC
Location: Self Imposed Exile

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby charlie_grumbles » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:00 pm UTC

walk-ONG
Image

bye wee pokey-molpy

maybe it will follow them
Lurking. Watching. Thinking. Writing. Waiting.
-- Charlie Grumbles

User avatar
mathrec
Posts: 159
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:30 am UTC
Location: Carlsbad, California
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby mathrec » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:05 pm UTC

There's been quite a discussion about math and relativity. I had to think about what to quote...

Ray Kremer wrote:
ergman wrote:Mmm. Everything is relatedive. For example: every way we have of giving directions becomes arbitrary at a certain point. Left and right are relative to the direction you're looking, north south east and west are planet specific, as are up and down. Is there some universal three dimensional grid of dimensions that people use to chart space, or is that relative too at some point?

Quite so. Even assuming universal agreement on three perpendicular axes, the location of the origin, the distance that each unit (amount of "one") equals, and the direction of the first axis are completely arbitrary. After that the direction of the second axis is partially confined but you still have a 360° range to choose from, and two choices for the third axis. Einstein also reminds us that all frames of reference are relative, so this is actually a very important tenet of science.


Nice catch on the axes, I was going to nitpick ergman's comment that left and right are relative to the direction you're looking to add...and to your definition of "up". You got at that succinctly with the second axis (up) and the choice of two axes (left/right).

This is exactly the right way to think about the question "Why does a mirror reverse "left" and "right", but not "up" and "down"? The crux of the answer is that "left" and "right" are defined by the direction you are looking and "up".


I usually snip my quotes pretty heavily, but there is some context here, so I've left this exchange pretty much intact, but I did highlight the specific parts that I'm responding to:
Ray Kremer wrote:
charlie_grumbles wrote:I don't think mathematicians think like that. Mathematics isn't (in our view) inherent in anything except the human mind. We "see" order in the universe, but it is an order imposed by how we think of it, not, precisely speaking, how it is.

Math is "pure mind stuff" (I think I'm quoting a badly remembered source here).

I'm pretty sure that physicists feel the same way. Physical theories aren't inherent in nature, but explanations of nature imposed by the way we choose to think. Both mathematicians and physicists build models of things and we have a bias for simple models (Occam's Razor). So, we say the earth follows an elliptical path around the sun, but that is far from accurate. It is just an approximation. The reality is that there is lots of wobble.

So, I think you have the understanding of the relationship between math and the universe just backwards; not an uncommon view. It isn't that there is math in the universe. It is that, in math (and somewhat differently in physics) we build models that help us understand, in a simple way, the complexity of the universe. But the math is in us.

I think I'm on pretty solid ground above, so I'm going to speculate a bit here. I've gotten some push-back on the following in the past, and physics is not my main study. But I'll make the bold claim that Atoms don't "exist". Neither do quarks and muons and all the rest. Those are just explanations, thought up by smart people to try to explain the complexity of the small. They are a mental model from which we can predict phenomena pretty accurately (not exactly). The reality is more complex than the model. Physicists, however, speak of quarks as if they "exist", but I think that really what they mean is that there are some phenomena that are "well explained" by the idea of quarks.

So, in this view (my story, and I'm stickin' to it), the universe isn't "built up" from small things like quarks. It just IS. We use quarks as a way to get a simple (hmmm) way to think about that complexity. Neither does it embody mathematical principles. People think those up themselves. But math is also used to build "sensible" models (i.e. predictive models) of how it all hangs together.

Again, I'm mostly speaking off the cuff and we're not really in disagreement on things, I think.

Elliptical orbits are there because they work. Planets don't decide to move in an elliptical path rather than a circular one, and they don't sit down with a calculator and run the figures, they just settle into a path that keeps them around the sun or they fly off into space. It's quite mathematical (though as you say, not with 100% precision) because there's a definite consistency there, but the formulas describing it exist because humans were curious and wanted to know why.

As far as the difference between the theory and reality, especially on the atomic scale, yes, the purpose of science is to describe and predict within a desired amount of precision and on a particular scale. Newtonian physics describes things wonderfully at a macroscopic level but disintegrates on the atomic scale. But what about the reverse? If all movement of particles can be alternately described as waves, does a thrown baseball have a waveform? The answer is yes, but it's so damn small compared to the baseball as a whole that it's not worth bothering with.

If you look at the history of knowledge about the atomic and sub-atomic scale, each new theory explained things that were known at the time. As we get better at investigating the quantum world, we find new things that existing theory doesn't fit, and so we refine the theory in a way that includes the new things but doesn't change the way that the older model fit with all the things we knew about before.

It's kind of like this comic http://www.xkcd.com/435/ again. If you are looking at behavioral mannerism you don't spend a lot of time thinking about how cells work. If you are looking at cells you don't spend a lot of time thinking about how atoms and molecules work. If you are looking at atoms and molecules you don't spend a lot of time thinking about how quarks work. And if you are looking at behavioral mannerisms you certainly never spend time thinking about quarks. It's all down there, or rather something that roughly corresponds to the descriptive theory is down there, but each theory is suited to the thing it's describing on the appropriate scale.


I'm 100% with Charlie on the understanding that mathematical models imitate reality. It's not that reality uses math.

Where I diverge significantly is that I disagree about the "reality" of things that we cannot observe directly with our senses. Let's leave quarks out the discussion for the moment, because you'd need to be familiar with the experimental design and results that suggest that quarks are "real" not just explanatory. We can have the discussion about electrons, which are just as unobservable to the human senses and behave in ways that are just as counterintuitive to the ways that we observe everyday objects.

If you accept things like books and sunshine as "real", then that is no different from accepting electrons as "real", once you understand the types of experiments that let us observe electrons. You might not know everything about a book (or about "books"), but you don't doubt that books are real. Some of the things you may understand about books might even be wrong, but that wouldn't make "books" be unreal. In the same way, physicists understand the observations of electrons in a way that leads them to accept that electrons are real, not just explanatory concepts.

(The same statement is also true about quarks. But that would not have been true 30 years ago. There was definite discussion then about whether quarks were real or merely explanatory.)
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
The end is always near.
Lord Randall wrote:Wait for it.

User avatar
SBN
Saved
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:15 pm UTC
Location: No longer in the home of the raptorcats, now in the home of the raptorcats.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby SBN » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:11 pm UTC

AluisioASG wrote:Can you folks stop with this almost-flame war about grammar and spelling and punctuation?<snip>

This is an almost-flame war in the same sense that I make almost as much as Bill Gates. If what it takes to be flame-free is 100% agreement all the time, I'd rather have a few flames.
astrotter wrote:It is not particularly clear to me at this time that we are not overanalyzing this...

Randalspeed thunk, iskinner, and other blitzers! Notes from the before-was improve the after-when.
Some Ways to Time
NetWeasel wrote:I want to put that in my sig... BUT I CAN'T!!!!

User avatar
Selcouth
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:38 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Selcouth » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:12 pm UTC

What, pray tell, be the difference between hedgehogs and porcupines?

I nearly wrote that sentence in German... German class is habit-forming. Aber sehr schön!

I'll avoid the physics discussion. If I start I'll never shut up.

Edit: Yeah, this isn't a flame war. Complicated debates can seem like flame wars on the outside, but believe me, the difference is vast.
"But I've never seen the Icarus story as a lesson about the limitations of humans... I see it as a lesson about the limitations of wax as an adhesive."

-Randall Munroe

User avatar
jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jovialbard » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:14 pm UTC

Reality doesn't use math, but math is part of reality. The nature of reality is fundamentally mathematical. The study of mathematics is the study of the essence of being. We shouldn't be surprised to find expression of that essence in the reality around us. In fact, what would be surprising is if we found an aspect of being that contradicted mathematics. That's the foundation of paradigm shift in fact, because it reveals to us that our paradigm is flawed.
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

User avatar
mscha
Posts: 6902
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:21 pm UTC
Location: NL
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby mscha » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:21 pm UTC

Hedgehog vs. tenrec (or something else):

Our Pokey looks and behaves really hedgehoggy (as far as you can tell from a bunch of mostly-black pixels)...
The problem is its size: on the “really neat” frame, Cueball is 38px high, and Pokey 10px. That makes Pokey's size 0.26q (which is exacly BlitzGirl's measurement from before), and assuming Cueball is an average size adult male, that's about 45cmH, or 1½'H. I haven't systematically checked every single species, but it looks like they don't really get bigger than about 30cmH (1'H). Of course, there are exceptions, but in the wild, such a huge one seems less likely.
But our cue to Outside ratio could be way off, of course. We don't know much about Cuegan, they might very well be still children. In that case, who knows, Cueball may be about 1.20mH tall, and Pokey about 30 cmH, 1'H.

Tenrec: the lesser hedgehoc tenrec seems the most likely candidate. It may not be one, but certainly could get away with impersonating one. I don't know anything about its behaviour, though: it might not do hedgehoggy stuff when it perceives danger.
Size is even more of a problem than with the hedgehog, though: “Head and body length is 5 to 6.8 inches”. (Bad wikipedia! No metric measurements?)

My money (in OTC currency) is on some kind of hedgehog, still.

Now Cuegan. They obviously know this type of molpy, but do they know what it's called? (Apart from “Little Prickly”, that is?) Either they don't; or they do, but it's so obvious to them (as it would be to many of us when we see a hedgehog, in full color and resolution) what it is, so they don't have to say it.
List¹ of all Frames of Time and after Time.
New here? Questions? Check the wiki.
Don't worry, feed molpies⁴.
Image
Holy Croce
Default footnotes; standard OTT-np2166m 1.2:
Spoiler:
Image
Image

User avatar
jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jovialbard » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:30 pm UTC

It could be that the art style overemphasizes the prominent characteristics of an entity. I mean should Cuegan's heads really be that big? Maybe it's just enlarged to show texture?
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

speising
Posts: 2349
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby speising » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:31 pm UTC

jovialbard wrote:It could be that the art style overemphasizes the prominent characteristics of an entity. I mean should Cuegan's heads really be that big? Maybe it's just enlarged to show texture?


defining "texture" loosely.

User avatar
thirds
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:16 pm UTC
Location: Tenrec Burrow NP1254

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby thirds » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:32 pm UTC

Tenrecs do roll up defensively.

One other possible molpy not yet mentioned is an Echnidna (Australia, Tasmania), which is about the right size:
Image
Image
Image
Last edited by thirds on Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:32 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
lmjb1964
Posts: 2462
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:09 pm UTC
Location: In the Present! Need to ketchup NP 2236-2280, plus NP 2026-2058 and something like 2060-2090+?.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby lmjb1964 » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:32 pm UTC

rvloon wrote:
Spoiler:
Neil_Boekend wrote:
BlitzGirl wrote:Perhaps GLR is trying to replicate the cicada effect by driving us all crazy with these chirpy newpix.
To late.....


No no, that should be:

To Time, to Time, nostrovia!
Nostrovia to the Waiters of Time!
Here is to the newpixbot,
Here is to the ONG-my-GOD!

Drink, nostrovia, to Time!

To Time, to Time nostrovia
Nostrovia to all the Waiters of Time!

Cherish your Buffyhats
Ddactyl your Waiting brats

Drink, nostrovia, to Time!

GLR would like us to be waitful
Even when our hearts lie panting on the floor

How much more can we be waitful
When there's really some-it
To be waitful for

To Time, to Time, nostrovia!

To Molpy's, to Chirpies.
To Time,

It gives you something to think about
Something to drink about

Drink, nostrovia to Time!

May all your waiting be pleasantly
May you wait quite incessantly

Drink, nostrovia to Time!

...

Ronald


Wonderful filk! I'll be singing this all day.

xpatiate wrote:In case my lame joke wasn't clear, I was suggesting Cueball was using the term "little prickly" in an adjective-nouny kind of way. As opposed to more of an adverb-adjectivey type thing. Like a ... ok, never mind.

I got the joke, and laughed. A lot. It was not a lame joke, btw.

k.bookbinder wrote:
Spoiler:
cellocgw wrote:
Neil_Boekend wrote:[spoiler]
spamjam wrote:
Neil_Boekend wrote:
tinosoph wrote:
Neil_Boekend wrote:
tinosoph wrote:Cueball is gonna hurt himself with all that spikes

EDIT: As pope of NewPage 836 I decree every poster and lurker of the One True Thread shall do 10 sit-ups today. And to continue the tradition of one of my predecessors, I order you all to be happy for this NewPage (in memoriam Neil_Boekend)

I'm not dead.
I don't want to go on the cart.

Oh, don't be such a baby!

I feel fine.

You're not fooling anyone, you know.

I feel happy. I feel happy.

And, pretty, and witty, and gay? Do you pity any TimeWaiter who isn't you this newpage?


I do not think that there are very many places outside of the OTT where one might use a Python (Monty, not Coding) reference to segue to a West Side Story reference. Most interesting (<<-- I wanted to say "Fascinating" but it was too Spock-ish)


OMR, I was cracking up over the whole Python (Monty) exchange, but the WSS segue just put it over the top. Man, I <3 you guys.

charlie_grumbles wrote:
Spoiler:
SBN wrote:
charlie_grumbles wrote:
Ray Kremer wrote:I suppose math is a bit like time. Oh, we base the year, month, and day on the movement of our planet and moon, but hours, minutes, and seconds are arbitrary divisions. Leave Earth and even the day and year are arbitrary. Arbitrary time measurements don't mean anything to anything except people. Yet time and the passage of time is inherent in all things, the very fabric of the universe.

So far, so good. Agreed.

I've got some domesticated wolpies here that very much understand hours. I must arise each day at 6:00 am. Breakfast is to be served precisely at 8:30 am, and dinner exactly at 5:00 pm. Bedtime is 10:00 pm. Any deviations from these times are met with severe disapproval, and the occasional paw-smack. They do not appear to understand days of the week, though, so this schedule is adhered to even on the weekends. The humans in the household do not have anywhere near the regularity the dogs have. (Other than that enforced by the dogs.)

Hmmm. So clocks and all the rest were invented to help humans better adhere to the laws imposed by dogs?

Interesting. Verrrry interesting.

I suppose the history is correct. We domesticate dogs. Dogs domesticate us. We invent ways to better measure time.

Makes sense. Any pet owner knows that our animals train us. My meowmolpy (I forget who I'm stealing that from) used to want to drink out of the bathroom sink. Anytime she jumped up on the sink, I was compelled to turn the water on for her, because "it's just so cute!" Of course, then I had to hang around to turn the water off. Now the sink is so last year, and she's decided she can only drink out of the tub faucet. This is more complicated, since she gets all wet (she's a weird molpyfeline, doesn't mind it) and I have to wait to dry her off so she doesn't leave puddles of water everywhere.

Fortunately, she's an older cat, so she's happy to sleep with me (on me) whenever I want to sleep. After I had surgery, she was happy as a clam (molpy bivalve?) since we were basically sleeping about 20 hours a day.

I'm so happy the conversation has gone back to molpies. I didn't have much to add to the math/philosophy discussion. It's like with certain kinds of jazz. I can really appreciate the artistry and knowledge and skill involved, but sometime when listening to it, my ears start glazing over. I am in awe of the amazing things you people have written here, but I can't always follow a lot of it.

Valarya wrote:
Spoiler:
Swein wrote:Prickly neat little ONG
Image

Goggalor wrote:I'd like to add my prediction: Megan describes the molpy as 'neat'.

Well done, Goggalor!! :shock: 8-)


Yes, nice job. Although, I have to say, that wasn't much of a stretch...
Image

You helped Addams stay in her home, and gave her a better life. She thanks you, and so do I.
Imagesmiley by yappo
That's a robot but it totally counts. Image

bot by balthasar_s

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9089
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby BlitzGirl » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:42 pm UTC

What, I missed all the drinking? I'll take that whiskey neat, if it's still available. I need one after reading through another couple Lego/brandname nitpickery newpages.

As for the pricklypoke, I'm still leaning hedgehog, even through the size is off. As mscha said, the measurements for a lesser tenrec would be off even more. Plus, the muzzle of the tenrec is, from what I can see, distinctively pointy - and the silhouette in Time doesn't seem to have that feature. (The Echnidna also has this problem). It's possible that the hedgehog is as large as it is so we can make out the spikes on its back, which would be more difficult to see if it was smaller. Also, I'm still an Africa-ist, and several hedgehog species match the parts of Africa where squirpys and Calabar pythons are known to live.

Some ketchup blitz responses:
Spoiler:
rhetorical wrote:Behold! I have been resurrected! I have come from PAGE 1, and... my, how the world has changed.

ETA: Oooh, pope. Decree: Coming up with a decree is left as an exercise to the reader.

An Old One! Quick, don't let it get away!
Also, I hate the assignments where you have to come up with the topic yourself. Blech.

TimeLurker wrote:
charlie_grumbles wrote:moving ONG soon <snip>

Soon being a relative term. First we have to stare at the little prickly17 for a couple newpix, then we have to walk back and get our packs, and then we can move alONG.

17Really neat

You have learned quickly, young Padawan. Though your use of subscript is suspect.

ergman wrote:<snip> The enemy's gate is down. That makes this the most subjective orientation of all!
The enemy of my enemy is my up!

Image

jovialbard wrote:
Earthling on Mars wrote:The inquisitor disregarding a papal order?! :shock:

Again, I'm pretty sure the papacy has been disbanded at least twice, whoever's the next pope should disband it again. This time disband it in the head, it appears to be a zombie.

:lol: This is true. I tried to kill it once, but it just made me mopey.
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jovialbard » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:42 pm UTC

To be fair re: the whole neat thing, they probably don't know how a thesaurus works.
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

User avatar
TheMinim
Posts: 939
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:47 pm UTC
Location: In The Present
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby TheMinim » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:47 pm UTC

I used to use 'neat' all of the time to describe stuff I liked. I think the neat thing here is more of the same.
Titled TheMinimastic as of NP 1610.
Hi Blitzers! And non-blitzers!
Official owner of NewPage 1572, and official co-owner of NewPage 2087 along with NoMouse.

User avatar
mscha
Posts: 6902
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:21 pm UTC
Location: NL
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby mscha » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:48 pm UTC

mathrec wrote:There's been quite a discussion about math and relativity. I had to think about what to quote...
<snip>
Spoiler:
I usually snip my quotes pretty heavily, but there is some context here, so I've left this exchange pretty much intact, but I did highlight the specific parts that I'm responding to:
Ray Kremer wrote:
charlie_grumbles wrote:I don't think mathematicians think like that. Mathematics isn't (in our view) inherent in anything except the human mind. We "see" order in the universe, but it is an order imposed by how we think of it, not, precisely speaking, how it is.

Math is "pure mind stuff" (I think I'm quoting a badly remembered source here).

I'm pretty sure that physicists feel the same way. Physical theories aren't inherent in nature, but explanations of nature imposed by the way we choose to think. Both mathematicians and physicists build models of things and we have a bias for simple models (Occam's Razor). So, we say the earth follows an elliptical path around the sun, but that is far from accurate. It is just an approximation. The reality is that there is lots of wobble.

So, I think you have the understanding of the relationship between math and the universe just backwards; not an uncommon view. It isn't that there is math in the universe. It is that, in math (and somewhat differently in physics) we build models that help us understand, in a simple way, the complexity of the universe. But the math is in us.

I think I'm on pretty solid ground above, so I'm going to speculate a bit here. I've gotten some push-back on the following in the past, and physics is not my main study. But I'll make the bold claim that Atoms don't "exist". Neither do quarks and muons and all the rest. Those are just explanations, thought up by smart people to try to explain the complexity of the small. They are a mental model from which we can predict phenomena pretty accurately (not exactly). The reality is more complex than the model. Physicists, however, speak of quarks as if they "exist", but I think that really what they mean is that there are some phenomena that are "well explained" by the idea of quarks.

So, in this view (my story, and I'm stickin' to it), the universe isn't "built up" from small things like quarks. It just IS. We use quarks as a way to get a simple (hmmm) way to think about that complexity. Neither does it embody mathematical principles. People think those up themselves. But math is also used to build "sensible" models (i.e. predictive models) of how it all hangs together.

Again, I'm mostly speaking off the cuff and we're not really in disagreement on things, I think.

Elliptical orbits are there because they work. Planets don't decide to move in an elliptical path rather than a circular one, and they don't sit down with a calculator and run the figures, they just settle into a path that keeps them around the sun or they fly off into space. It's quite mathematical (though as you say, not with 100% precision) because there's a definite consistency there, but the formulas describing it exist because humans were curious and wanted to know why.

As far as the difference between the theory and reality, especially on the atomic scale, yes, the purpose of science is to describe and predict within a desired amount of precision and on a particular scale. Newtonian physics describes things wonderfully at a macroscopic level but disintegrates on the atomic scale. But what about the reverse? If all movement of particles can be alternately described as waves, does a thrown baseball have a waveform? The answer is yes, but it's so damn small compared to the baseball as a whole that it's not worth bothering with.

If you look at the history of knowledge about the atomic and sub-atomic scale, each new theory explained things that were known at the time. As we get better at investigating the quantum world, we find new things that existing theory doesn't fit, and so we refine the theory in a way that includes the new things but doesn't change the way that the older model fit with all the things we knew about before.

It's kind of like this comic http://www.xkcd.com/435/ again. If you are looking at behavioral mannerism you don't spend a lot of time thinking about how cells work. If you are looking at cells you don't spend a lot of time thinking about how atoms and molecules work. If you are looking at atoms and molecules you don't spend a lot of time thinking about how quarks work. And if you are looking at behavioral mannerisms you certainly never spend time thinking about quarks. It's all down there, or rather something that roughly corresponds to the descriptive theory is down there, but each theory is suited to the thing it's describing on the appropriate scale.

I'm 100% with Charlie on the understanding that mathematical models imitate reality. It's not that reality uses math.

Where I diverge significantly is that I disagree about the "reality" of things that we cannot observe directly with our senses. Let's leave quarks out the discussion for the moment, because you'd need to be familiar with the experimental design and results that suggest that quarks are "real" not just explanatory. We can have the discussion about electrons, which are just as unobservable to the human senses and behave in ways that are just as counterintuitive to the ways that we observe everyday objects.

If you accept things like books and sunshine as "real", then that is no different from accepting electrons as "real", once you understand the types of experiments that let us observe electrons. You might not know everything about a book (or about "books"), but you don't doubt that books are real. Some of the things you may understand about books might even be wrong, but that wouldn't make "books" be unreal. In the same way, physicists understand the observations of electrons in a way that leads them to accept that electrons are real, not just explanatory concepts.

(The same statement is also true about quarks. But that would not have been true 30 years ago. There was definite discussion then about whether quarks were real or merely explanatory.)

So what would you say about string theory? That stuff is way, way, way over my head, but in some versions, like M-theory, you need eleven dimensions to make the theory work.
Is there anyone who would think that those dimensions might be ‘real’, and not just a model to make the calculations work?
List¹ of all Frames of Time and after Time.
New here? Questions? Check the wiki.
Don't worry, feed molpies⁴.
Image
Holy Croce
Default footnotes; standard OTT-np2166m 1.2:
Spoiler:
Image
Image

User avatar
kenmelken
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:28 am UTC
Location: Svithjod

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby kenmelken » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:51 pm UTC

TheMinim wrote:I used to use 'neat' all of the time to describe stuff I liked. I think the neat thing here is more of the same.


Likewise, at least in America, a great number of people often use the word "cool" all the time to describe anything new or interesting. It doesn't mean they have a limited vocabulary, just that that is the common go-to word they resort to for such things. Others use similar words for this purpose. Spock says "fascinating" all the time, for instance.
In Svithjod, there stands a rock. It is 100 miles high and 100 miles wide. Once every 1000 years a little bird comes to this rock to sharpen its beak. One time, I changed just the last sentence of this signature, and lots of you noticed. Image

User avatar
thirds
Posts: 274
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 2:16 pm UTC
Location: Tenrec Burrow NP1254

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby thirds » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:53 pm UTC

There are 4 species of hedgehogs in Africa:
North African hedgehog on the far northern edge of the continent
Southern African hedgehog in "Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe"
Four-toed hedgehog across central Africa below the Sahara
Somali hedgehog only on the edge of the horn of Africa

User avatar
Earthling on Mars
Morning
Posts: 669
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 6:35 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere in the Solar System

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby Earthling on Mars » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:53 pm UTC

charlie_grumbles wrote:Can someone post a set of links to AluisioASG's Last Time Waiter... so it can be followed easily? Post to the wiki, I think. I often have to skip over it in the interest of time and then it is hard to go back. Even a list of page numbers that contain the various chapters would help. Thanks.


Here's a list:
Spoiler:


This is in the order they were posted, and includes all the previous versions of chapters. If anyone can figure out how to organize it sufficiently to put it on the wiki, they're welcome to do so.

ETA: He also posted a master copy here.
Last edited by Earthling on Mars on Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jovialbard » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:54 pm UTC

mscha wrote:So what would you say about string theory? That stuff is way, way, way over my head, but in some versions, like M-theory, you need eleven dimensions to make the theory work.
Is there anyone who would think that those dimensions might be ‘real’, and not just a model to make the calculations work?


I think that's precisely what string theory posits. That there are literally more than 4 dimensions of spacetime (or perhaps they call it something else, I don't know that much about it). I mean why are 3 dimensions even real? It's just an abstraction to describe what we experience isn't it?
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog

User avatar
yappobiscuits
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:41 am UTC
Location: The Sea
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby yappobiscuits » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:57 pm UTC

Randall above, I go coma and come back to find we're on the bloody legos again!
cellocgw wrote:
Wildhound wrote:I think that the real question here, and the only one that we should care about, is "What's going on back at the sandcastles?"

That's like asking whatever happened to Rickon, or to The Imp's first wife. We'll never know.

Rickon's gonna come back with an army of unicorn-riding cannibals and take back the North and rule supreme.
charlie_grumbles wrote:I have to accuse the current pope of heresy and ask yappobiscuits to zip up to Skye for some Taliskers.
Truly the queen of whiskey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talisker_distillery
You may have a drop of water (1) but no ice.
Fluffy watches out for these things.
Too smoky/peaty for little kids though. You need ..... on your ...... to appreciate it. (keepin' it safe for work).

Why me, are there no Scottish OTTers who can get it for us? ...No? Ok, if not I suppose I probably am the closest one of us to Scotland... Off I go then! *Heads off on quest while singing*

All by yourself you must stride
Not challenge fate with false pride
Beware the bridge to reach the far side

All by yourself by your own guide
To make the salmon leap up high
Talisker's stronghold you'll find on the Isle of Skye!
lmjb1964 wrote:I'm so happy the conversation has gone back to molpies. I didn't have much to add to the math/philosophy discussion. It's like with certain kinds of jazz. I can really appreciate the artistry and knowledge and skill involved, but sometime when listening to it, my ears start glazing over. I am in awe of the amazing things you people have written here, but I can't always follow a lot of it.

Glad I'm not the only one... I skipped all that mathy stuff. Way over my head...

Re. Pricklpy - I'm still a hedgehogist. I don't think it's an echidna, since it doesn't seem to have that distinctive long nose.
OTTscars results Pt. 2 coming... eventually, but not from me. Seeking writer.
English Instrumentalist Waterottermolpy
Mighty Troubadour of the OTT
Image

User avatar
TheMinim
Posts: 939
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:47 pm UTC
Location: In The Present
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby TheMinim » Thu Jun 13, 2013 7:58 pm UTC

kenmelken wrote:
TheMinim wrote:I used to use 'neat' all of the time to describe stuff I liked. I think the neat thing here is more of the same.


Likewise, at least in America, a great number of people often use the word "cool" all the time to describe anything new or interesting. It doesn't mean they have a limited vocabulary, just that that is the common go-to word they resort to for such things. Others use similar words for this purpose. Spock says "fascinating" all the time, for instance.


Yes, I've used 'cool' as well. It's all awesome anyway.
Titled TheMinimastic as of NP 1610.
Hi Blitzers! And non-blitzers!
Official owner of NewPage 1572, and official co-owner of NewPage 2087 along with NoMouse.

User avatar
charlie_grumbles
Posts: 1004
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:07 pm UTC
Location: Self Imposed Exile

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby charlie_grumbles » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:00 pm UTC

climb-ONG
Image
Lurking. Watching. Thinking. Writing. Waiting.
-- Charlie Grumbles

User avatar
SBN
Saved
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:15 pm UTC
Location: No longer in the home of the raptorcats, now in the home of the raptorcats.

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby SBN » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:00 pm UTC

TheMinim wrote:
kenmelken wrote:
TheMinim wrote:I used to use 'neat' all of the time to describe stuff I liked. I think the neat thing here is more of the same.


Likewise, at least in America, a great number of people often use the word "cool" all the time to describe anything new or interesting. It doesn't mean they have a limited vocabulary, just that that is the common go-to word they resort to for such things. Others use similar words for this purpose. Spock says "fascinating" all the time, for instance.


Yes, I've used 'cool' as well. It's all awesome anyway.

I have it on good authority that what the kids are saying these days is "Cool beans and awesome sauce!"
astrotter wrote:It is not particularly clear to me at this time that we are not overanalyzing this...

Randalspeed thunk, iskinner, and other blitzers! Notes from the before-was improve the after-when.
Some Ways to Time
NetWeasel wrote:I want to put that in my sig... BUT I CAN'T!!!!

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9089
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby BlitzGirl » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:00 pm UTC

thirds wrote:There are 4 species of hedgehogs in Africa:
North African hedgehog on the far northern edge of the continent
Southern African hedgehog in "Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Zimbabwe"
Four-toed hedgehog across central Africa below the Sahara
Somali hedgehog only on the edge of the horn of Africa

Of those, the four-toed hedgehog is the one that most closely matches the Calabar python's range. The part of Africa bordering the Gulf of Guinea to the north and northwest (Ivory, Gold, and Slave Coasts) has me most interested. I think that an east-west shore would match Cuegan's description of the sun's placement.
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
yappobiscuits
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:41 am UTC
Location: The Sea
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby yappobiscuits » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

TheMinim wrote:
kenmelken wrote:
TheMinim wrote:I used to use 'neat' all of the time to describe stuff I liked. I think the neat thing here is more of the same.


Likewise, at least in America, a great number of people often use the word "cool" all the time to describe anything new or interesting. It doesn't mean they have a limited vocabulary, just that that is the common go-to word they resort to for such things. Others use similar words for this purpose. Spock says "fascinating" all the time, for instance.


Yes, I've used 'cool' as well. It's all awesome anyway.

I often actually try to vary as much as possible the words I use for that meaning... Cool, nice, neat, awesome, brilliant, fantastic, smashing, excellent, marvellous, splendid... spiffing... tip-top... well I'm getting into comically-posh territory there but yes :P
OTTscars results Pt. 2 coming... eventually, but not from me. Seeking writer.
English Instrumentalist Waterottermolpy
Mighty Troubadour of the OTT
Image

User avatar
kenmelken
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:28 am UTC
Location: Svithjod

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby kenmelken » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:07 pm UTC

SBN wrote:
TheMinim wrote:
kenmelken wrote:
TheMinim wrote:I used to use 'neat' all of the time to describe stuff I liked. I think the neat thing here is more of the same.


Likewise, at least in America, a great number of people often use the word "cool" all the time to describe anything new or interesting. It doesn't mean they have a limited vocabulary, just that that is the common go-to word they resort to for such things. Others use similar words for this purpose. Spock says "fascinating" all the time, for instance.


Yes, I've used 'cool' as well. It's all awesome anyway.

I have it on good authority that what the kids are saying these days is "Cool beans and awesome sauce!"


There's, like, a whole pleth of supes awes words the kids are using today. Some-daisies I think its, like, all so totes presh, but then, like, other timesies I'm, like, "This be way cray-cray, like, right?" Anyway, that's my lit update on the 'dorbs lang the kids make out of 'brevs these days.
In Svithjod, there stands a rock. It is 100 miles high and 100 miles wide. Once every 1000 years a little bird comes to this rock to sharpen its beak. One time, I changed just the last sentence of this signature, and lots of you noticed. Image

User avatar
TheMinim
Posts: 939
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:47 pm UTC
Location: In The Present
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby TheMinim » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:09 pm UTC

kenmelken wrote:
Spoiler:
SBN wrote:
TheMinim wrote:
kenmelken wrote:
TheMinim wrote:I used to use 'neat' all of the time to describe stuff I liked. I think the neat thing here is more of the same.


Likewise, at least in America, a great number of people often use the word "cool" all the time to describe anything new or interesting. It doesn't mean they have a limited vocabulary, just that that is the common go-to word they resort to for such things. Others use similar words for this purpose. Spock says "fascinating" all the time, for instance.


Yes, I've used 'cool' as well. It's all awesome anyway.

I have it on good authority that what the kids are saying these days is "Cool beans and awesome sauce!"


There's, like, a whole pleth of supes awes words the kids are using today. Some-daisies I think its, like, all so totes presh, but then, like, other timesies I'm, like, "This be way cray-cray, like, right?" Anyway, that's my lit update on the 'dorbs lang the kids make out of 'brevs these days.


...

I have no idea...
Titled TheMinimastic as of NP 1610.
Hi Blitzers! And non-blitzers!
Official owner of NewPage 1572, and official co-owner of NewPage 2087 along with NoMouse.

User avatar
yappobiscuits
Posts: 2845
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 12:41 am UTC
Location: The Sea
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby yappobiscuits » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:10 pm UTC

kenmelken wrote:There's, like, a whole pleth of supes awes words the kids are using today. Some-daisies I think its, like, all so totes presh, but then, like, other timesies I'm, like, "This be way cray-cray, like, right?" Anyway, that's my lit update on the 'dorbs lang the kids make out of 'brevs these days.

I need to wash out my brain after reading that...
OTTscars results Pt. 2 coming... eventually, but not from me. Seeking writer.
English Instrumentalist Waterottermolpy
Mighty Troubadour of the OTT
Image

User avatar
TheMinim
Posts: 939
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2013 8:47 pm UTC
Location: In The Present
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby TheMinim » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:11 pm UTC

Anyone want some LiquidFolio? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Titled TheMinimastic as of NP 1610.
Hi Blitzers! And non-blitzers!
Official owner of NewPage 1572, and official co-owner of NewPage 2087 along with NoMouse.

User avatar
k.bookbinder
Posts: 975
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2013 6:17 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby k.bookbinder » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:15 pm UTC

lmjb1964 wrote:
k.bookbinder wrote:
Spoiler:
cellocgw wrote:
Neil_Boekend wrote:[spoiler]
spamjam wrote:
Neil_Boekend wrote:
tinosoph wrote:
Neil_Boekend wrote:
tinosoph wrote:Cueball is gonna hurt himself with all that spikes

EDIT: As pope of NewPage 836 I decree every poster and lurker of the One True Thread shall do 10 sit-ups today. And to continue the tradition of one of my predecessors, I order you all to be happy for this NewPage (in memoriam Neil_Boekend)

I'm not dead.
I don't want to go on the cart.

Oh, don't be such a baby!

I feel fine.

You're not fooling anyone, you know.

I feel happy. I feel happy.

And, pretty, and witty, and gay? Do you pity any TimeWaiter who isn't you this newpage?


I do not think that there are very many places outside of the OTT where one might use a Python (Monty, not Coding) reference to segue to a West Side Story reference. Most interesting (<<-- I wanted to say "Fascinating" but it was too Spock-ish)


OMR, I was cracking up over the whole Python (Monty) exchange, but the WSS segue just put it over the top. Man, I <3 you guys.


I definitely started singing a little when I read it. :D

BlitzGirl wrote:What, I missed all the drinking? I'll take that whiskey neat, if it's still available. I need one after reading through another couple Lego/brandname nitpickery newpages.

As for the pricklypoke, I'm still leaning hedgehog, even through the size is off. As mscha said, the measurements for a lesser tenrec would be off even more. Plus, the muzzle of the tenrec is, from what I can see, distinctively pointy - and the silhouette in Time doesn't seem to have that feature. (The Echnidna also has this problem). It's possible that the hedgehog is as large as it is so we can make out the spikes on its back, which would be more difficult to see if it was smaller. Also, I'm still an Africa-ist, and several hedgehog species match the parts of Africa where squirpys and Calabar pythons are known to live.


I have definitely converted from hyrax to hedgehog. Also, I think the snout would have been slightly more prominent if it had been a tenrec. Granted, in my opinion, molpyx is a very cute name for a molpy hyrax, but hedgemolpy will do, too. Hedgehogs are awfully cute :)
"HAL9000" This thread is a goldmine for signatures.
"StratPlayer" All in all, that sand paper rubbed me the wrong way.
"charlie_grumbles" The secret of the geeks. "Copy, Borrow, Steal, Succeed"
"ucim" There's a forestful of treeish people here.

Image Welcome! Confused? See here.

User avatar
BlitzGirl
Posts: 9089
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:48 am UTC
Location: Out of the basement for Yip 6! Schizoblitz: 115/2672 NP
Contact:

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby BlitzGirl » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:16 pm UTC

yappobiscuits wrote:
kenmelken wrote:There's, like, a whole pleth of supes awes words the kids are using today. Some-daisies I think its, like, all so totes presh, but then, like, other timesies I'm, like, "This be way cray-cray, like, right?" Anyway, that's my lit update on the 'dorbs lang the kids make out of 'brevs these days.

I need to wash out my brain after reading that...

I understood that whole thing, but I didn't like it. Image
Knight Temporal of the One True Comic
BlitzGirl the Pink, Mopey Molpy Mome
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image<Profile
~.Image~.FAQ->Image

User avatar
taixzo
Posts: 1617
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 4:54 am UTC
Location: The Present

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby taixzo » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:17 pm UTC

charlie_grumbles wrote:climb-ONG
Image


My prediction: The molpy will uncurl as Cuegan leave the frame. We will follow it for one or two newpix more, then switch back to Cuegan,
BlitzGirl the Next
BlitzGirl the Fast
Knight Temporal
Bringer of the Light

Useless utilities: Newpix clock for Mac OS X, Newpix clock for Ubuntu

Sandgarden - a relaxing experience for Time Waiters

Best wishes to GnomeAnne, ColletArrow and january1may! One day you will all join me in the Present!

User avatar
jovialbard
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 11:08 pm UTC

Re: 1190: "Time"

Postby jovialbard » Thu Jun 13, 2013 8:17 pm UTC

This needle-pulled jawn be poppin? (Do they still say poppin or is that so 20-aught)
I wrote a book exploring the nature of identity and loss of self! And another book about babies!
Also, vlog and short-story blog


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mscha, Rakhal and 46 guests