Printable View
Tower communication with signs in the source is one or more of: Telepathy, sharing ideas, images, and feelings mind meld-like; image macros; or trope-laden talk combined with cultural references. Possibly some combination of the three. Holding a conversation in Signs is like a wiki dive.
For a very detailed review about the flaws see these videos by "mr. plinkett". It's a special kind of humour btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sniccups
Let's not get too sacrcastic, it's only .... 8 years. :smallfrown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteros
looing back at those comics, it's almost painful to see those and how much better the comic was back then; better plot, interesting dialogue, genuine character conflict, I think better art. Compare with the last update.
You need to be careful here. You might say that 2 of something, and 2 more of something, obviously add to 4. But, I can take (I think these are the right liquids) 2 oz of water, and 2 oz of alcohol, and add them together. The result will not be 4 oz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaphan
The n you are looking for is around 10^80 things in the observable universe. Or, perhaps, 10^120 quantum events. Or, perhaps, 2^10^120 possible outcomes of the quantum events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaphan
But note that there's a clear example of a "physical" number that has no physical correspondence -- of the 2^10^120 coin flips, we only see 10^80 things.
Abstract math on things that are in principle finite, but effectively infinite gets ... well, weird. Statistics is full of people assuming an infinite population and doing sampling techniques that are based on an infinite population when we are actually a finite number of people.
As for math on infinities? You first have to make some axiomatic assumptions. The nature of the axioms you choose gives you the resultant math system. Is there one infinity only? Are there an infinite number of larger infinities -- and can we derive a comparison between them? (i.e. -- does 2^(aleph null) == aleph one?)
Or do you take your numbers to be conway numbers, which gives a different concept of infinity, and heck even a finite infintesimal? Different base axioms, different numbers, different math.
See also my current signature :-).
Or any number of numberphile (and probably 3 blue 1 brown) videos.
...That's how literally all statistical measures are done, though. Almost noone ever measures the whole of a population, because a smaller random sample gives an accurate representation of the facts. When you see a statistic like XX% of [scientists] believe Y, I can promise you that not everyone working in that field was polled. And if you find a study saying something like '60% of rats become tired when given milk' or whatever, they don't study every single rat. They're working on the basis that a random sample is representitive of the whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razade
Obviously sampling is not entirely accurate, which is why margins of error exist, but it's close enough that we can make solid predictions about the rest of the population from it.
Um... why? This is not a subject science has anything to say about (since I'm talking about things that are by defninition not empirically observable). Nor have I contradicted anything found in science. A scientist might have opinions about metaphisics. Many have quite... strident... opinions, indeed. But they might have opinions on cooking, too, and I would still prefer to ask a chef. Because in a conversation about philosophy, a scientist is at best a skilled amateur. They have no special insight from their sciencyness, any more than they do into classic literature. You might as well say 'I'd rather keep with CEOs' - in either case all you're saying is that you'd rather trust a possibly talented amateur than someone who spends their entire professional career studying the subject.Quote:
As to the rest...I'd rather keep with scientists over philosophers thanks.
Sorry, sore spot.
Yeah, you're actually completely right here. '2+2=4' relies on only 'adding' them in the mathematical sense of counting them, without doing anything so rash as actually adding them together.Quote:
Originally Posted by keybounce
I don't think this affects my argument, but yeah, I should have been more careful.
Have you seen that picture of a triangle made of triangles, where you have to count the triangles (oh hey, the word 'triangle' has lot all meaning)?Quote:
The n you are looking for is around 10^80 things in the observable universe. Or, perhaps, 10^120 quantum events. Or, perhaps, 2^10^120 possible outcomes of the quantum events.
But note that there's a clear example of a "physical" number that has no physical correspondence -- of the 2^10^120 coin flips, we only see 10^80 things.
I was sort of deliberately vague here because I thought it might be allowable to count all the subatomic particles *and* all the atoms *and* all the things made of atoms, and some atoms might be making several things, and what exactly counts as a thing and...
This is genuinely the kind of thing I worry about. My brain is a strange place.
Also, my grasp of quantum physics is kinda hazy, but surely the whole thing there is that all the outcomes do exist, even if they're not actually possible to observe? That sort of seems different than a wholly abstract object to me.
Quote:
Abstract math on things that are in principle finite, but effectively infinite gets ... well, weird. Statistics is full of people assuming an infinite population and doing sampling techniques that are based on an infinite population when we are actually a finite number of people.
As for math on infinities? You first have to make some axiomatic assumptions. The nature of the axioms you choose gives you the resultant math system. Is there one infinity only? Are there an infinite number of larger infinities -- and can we derive a comparison between them? (i.e. -- does 2^(aleph null) == aleph one?)
Or do you take your numbers to be conway numbers, which gives a different concept of infinity, and heck even a finite infintesimal? Different base axioms, different numbers, different math.
See also my current signature :-).
Or any number of numberphile (and probably 3 blue 1 brown) videos.
I mean, I would argue the stats thing is more people misusing maths than maths itself being weird.
As for the infinities... completely right. I was going to make a counter-argument, but you're right, since you can always just reject the axiom of infinity altogether. If you don't, though, I'd argue that for all the differences, there are a fair few things you can say about infinity without using axiioms we don't also use for normal maths.
Sure, but not on just a single study. Statistics can be made to say anything as long as the parameters tested are wiggled enough. I don't believe your claim that almost all philosophers believe...any one thing in regards to philosophy and a single study isn't enough evidence to make me think you've backed your case up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaphan
Either way, it doesn't matter.
Well...no...because if there were a thing such as metaphysics I'd expect it to be testable and repeatable and I'd very much expect scientists to have something to say on the matter. I'd also argue that there isn't a non-existent number of scientists who also claim to be philosophers. Sam Harris comes to mind who claims to be both. Daniel Dennett another. How big the number is is beyond my ability to give but there's at least two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaphan
And I know these numbers because they're represented by objects in the tangible space of reality. Or what I perceive as the tangible space of reality. I could just be a brain in a vat, no real way to prove I'm not but if I am then that's a reality I don't experience and I'm really only interested in discussing the reality that I seem to inhabit. Because it's the only one I can discuss.
Speaking of, man...Erfworld really does like verbose nonsense that means nothing.
Sorry, btw. I'm bad at not doing philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sniccups
Then it's a good thing I said 'most', not 'almost all'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razade
The thing is, I have a study, however little you might like it. I also have some experience with philosophers. Based on what you've said, I am fairly certain your experience with actual modern philosophers is limited. So your feeling that philosophers do not mostly agree on a subject appears to be based on literally nothing other than instinct. I generally feel that even one survey is a better guide than 'nothing', unless that survey has some obvious flaw. Especially when it's kind of hard to see a motive for anyone to try and influence the study's findings. In this case, the methodology (including how people were selected) is available freely if you really want to die on this hill.
Then you don't understand what metaphysics is, because if you could study and test it, it would not be metaphysics. It would just be physics. As for it not existing... metaphysics is a series of questions about the nature of reality. It can't 'not exist', unless you think questions like 'what makes a chair a chair, rather than a sofa?' simply don't have answers.Quote:
Well...no...because if there were a thing such as metaphysics I'd expect it to be testable
If you mean 'abstract objects', um... how? They would be by definition non-physical. Science is about performing experiments to test hypotheses. You can't perform experiments on things you cannot directly interact with in any way. We don't even know much about dark matter, and that's actually physical.
[quote]I'd also argue that there isn't a non-existent number of scientists who also claim to be philosophers. Sam Harris comes to mind who claims to be both. Daniel Dennett another. How big the number is is beyond my ability to give but there's at least two.
So? Someone being both a scientist and a philosopher does not mean that the fact that they are a scientist impacts their value as a philosopher, except insofar as they have less time to devote to philosophy. Harris is not a better philosopher because he is a scientist, any more than he is a better chef.
He also fits my label of 'amateur at best' pretty well, but I probably shouldn't go further into that than saying that if I called myself a climate scientist without having studied the subject in depth, I shouldn't expect to be taken seriously either.
I am told that the number '10^121' cannot really be represented by any tangible object, because there simply are not that many objects. If you think it can be, just increase the number until you run out of objects. The Universe is finite and the natural numbers aren't, so it'll happen eventually. And yet, the statement '10^121 is even' is true.Quote:
And I know these numbers because they're represented by objects in the tangible space of reality. Or what I perceive as the tangible space of reality. I could just be a brain in a vat, no real way to prove I'm not but if I am then that's a reality I don't experience and I'm really only interested in discussing the reality that I seem to inhabit. Because it's the only one I can discuss.
Speaking of, man...Erfworld really does like verbose nonsense that means nothing.
And just to note, "10^121" cannot be the physical version of that number, because it is meaningful iff humans exist to give it meaning. Whereas '10^121 is even' would remain true if life had never existed in the first place.
This wasn't a random sample, though. It was a list of professors from departments that scored above a certain rating on the Philosophy Gourmet survey (plus a few more from outside that survey's scope). The PhilPapers survey itself baldly states that its population sample is biased towards certain kinds of philosophy, and because it's not a random sample, there are probably unaddressed biases to consider as well. So there's not much reason to believe this sample is representative of the broader population of philosophers. I suppose one could argue that it's biased towards, er, 'respected philosophical consensus', but you first have to argue that PG is a good measure of that, which is a decidedly nontrivial premise, and then address any bias PhilPapers had in selecting philosophers from those departments (unless they just polled everyone - the survey design section is not clear on that point).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaphan
Not that I think this is particularly relevant, because the philosophy in this thread goes off the rails long before we have to appeal to the professional philosophy community at large. Honestly, I'm struggling to decide which statement is weirder: that numbers aren't abstract, or that the existence of mathematical theorems is proof of anything other than the existence of mathematical theorems.
E:
Consider the statement "A layup in one team's basket is worth two points to the opposing team." That statement is true within the context of a set of rules humans invented to give meaning to terms like 'layup', 'points', 'basket', 'team', and 'opposing'. Personally, I think it's a bit silly to say the platonic ideal of a 2-point layup would exist without humans to give it meaning. If that's true, then find me an abstraction that isn't a platonic ideal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaphan
But mathematics is just the same. All it means to say that '10^121 is even' is that we've invented a game of natural numbers where you can (at a minimum) multiply and exponentiate, and in this game the rules say 2*5*10^120 = 10^121. What makes that game any more intrinsically, platonically real than the game of basketball?
... science as we now understand it requires accepting certain metaphysical assumptions. All scientific methods were and are philosophical innovations.
Agreed, the art was better in book two than now, I read the entire comic this summer and could really see the decline in pacing and art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Welf
It's painful, cause i liked the comic at first. Now I don't know. There are some great ideas, but they are badly handled.
And we have SKIPsign. For the fourth time this month I believe.
Aren't we still under "updates are whenever" mode?
Look, at least it's better than the era between those two. The less said about that one the better.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Patterner
Stanley vs Jillian was pretty much the highest point of the webcomic. Dwagons, Megawoliffs, decrypted, all the arkentools playing a role, the rulers of GK and FAQ doing what they do best, Charlie and Hamster pulling strings behind the scenes, magic shenigans, PROMOTIONS, and about zero sudden changes to other characters points of view, no repeating the same thing a dozen times, no mixing different languages in the same phrases, with regular updates to boot.
Something I realized recently:
The Arkenpliers are supposed to add Life to Croakamancy.
Croakamancy = Motion + Matter, aligned with Fate.
Life + Motion + Matter, aligned with Fate = Carnymancy.
Basically, the Arkenpliers turn Croakamancy into Carnymancy.
New comic.
Spoiler
And it sounds like Wanda really is dead. Course, with the Arkenpliers awakened, we'll see how long that lasts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaScribe
SpoilerIs that what Fool's Fall means?
This was actually a good page for a change though it feels short. What happens next?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JavaScribe
SpoilerNope, Jack's thinking about when Wanda was addicted to the flowers and wasting away from that. Not that she is dead from the cave in. That question still has t be answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandofShadows
SpoilerI think they mean that Wanda died the moment Jack tried to make his leap at Ceasar - no Wanda, no Decrypted, Jack Snipe is a pile of dust on the floor. Which is a plausible way to read it. Personally, I don't want to see it that way because Jack is one of the best bits of this story and I dread to imagine it going on without him.
Well, SOMETHING appears to be happening. There've been fakeouts before, so I can't be certain, but it looks like we might get a major shift.
With TV, of course, not Wanda. If Wanda actually died, that only means that we just went through all a bunch of updates that had the goal of setting up how we can resurrect her in some way that should be impossible. I am so sick of rule breaking. I like the war game setting because of trying to work inside the rules, not hearing about how there is constantly some new way to just toss in new, extremely complicated, reasons as to why people don't die when they are killed. I was really REALLY hoping that finally killing off the walking deus ex machina would tone down the craziness a bit, but the absurdities keep on coming. WHY DO WE NEED THIS??? Rob really needs to learn how to trim down the story.
On that note, I think I'm actually okay with TV getting destroyed. This whole thing has just been a useless distraction anyway, and it's time to wipe out part of this excessively bloated cast. While I did think that Caesar would have something a bit more important to do before dying, because I got the impression he had a Fate, this is also fine. I just want the story to start moving again, and not be stuck in this quagmire.
What's TV even good for anymore? Bunny's dead, Faq is going to get back the cities it lost, and the TV military is pretty useless vs Charlie, without being able to hack the portal. Is there anything that TV can really help with in the war against Charlie? It's pretty much dead weight at this point. So let's see what happens when a ruler dies. I've always been curious what it means for a city to freeze, or how neutral units react to others. Also will be interesting to see what the city does.
I think there's a missed opportunity; had you said that the page 'falls short', it would have been amusing and relevant. :smallwink:Quote:
Originally Posted by guttering flame
Losing Jack in the story would be terrible. He and Parson had great chemistry and I really wish they'd get back together again to keep plotting the war on Charlie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Calemyr
Yeah, I'm not fond of all the new rules and caveats in this book either, but my big worry is what Calemyr mentioned. If we lose good characters like Jack, it's really gonna hurt my desire to keep reading on. And there are a few characters I like that are decrypted. D:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaO2
I guess I'm okay if TV gets destroyed, but it just feels cheap the way it goes down with Caesar just giving up and going for suicide. He should of gone down swinging at Bill or something instead.
I didn't read the page as if Jack was dead. Just that he's in shock or something.
Same. I think Wanda and the Decrypted are still around. Caesar, though..Quote:
Originally Posted by Anteros
I'll miss him. Even if no one else will.
Honestly, it might be best for his mind if he doesn't get Decrypted.
At this point I'd honestly just be glad to remove a bunch of pointless characters from the story. Even though if Caesar dies and TV ends then this arc was completely pointless.
I'm betting that something moves, breaks, or otherwise blocks the portal.
Possibly all the portals automagically turn off when too many are broken, and Gobwin Knob's just got wonky wrench'd
Possibly Gobwin Knob's portal is carnied in a new way, linking the two protagonist occupied cities.
Most likely though, the Transylvito tower blocks it (towers love to erase cliffhangers, especially when it stops story progression)
Maybe Ceasar does a Parson and enters the MK for a smoke. Nothing at all happens because Ceasar was too oblivious to the danger to die. < Long Carny-Vampire explanation to follow > Charlie falls in love with this fellow Carny-ruler and apologizes.
Jack didn't just faint. Ceasar's Kick to the Head was so awesome it KO Jack before he even noticed.
I think Wanda is dead. But I do think she is coming back. Maybe Ivan finds the wrench? Then the wrench tells him drop to it in her hands, magic happens, and voila! One instant decrypted Wanda.
Agreed. I rather hope Caesar didn't just commit suicide. Not only do I like him as a character, it would be a rotten thing to do to his side.Quote:
Originally Posted by DigoDragon
Wow, the characters themselves are becoming self-aware and realizing the story has completely stagnated and nothing they do matters anymore! The only way to escape from that hell is death-by-portal to not leave a body behind to be decrypted. :smallbiggrin:
Ivan is decrypted though. If (and we don't know either way what happens) all decrypted turn to dust upon Wanda's death, that would mean Wanda is S.O.L. until someone else comes by with the Arkenpliers to decrypt her.Quote:
Originally Posted by xroads
Even though TV has been getting kicked in the teeth a lot lately, and he's suffered a big personal loss, Caesar keeps trying to preserve his side. Ben is trying to tell him that there's a plan at the moment. I wouldn't believe Caesar to be the type to just give up like this... then again, I suppose even strong people have a breaking point and maybe this is the quick way to kill the coming heir?Quote:
Agreed. I rather hope Caesar didn't just commit suicide. Not only do I like him as a character, it would be a rotten thing to do to his side.
Still rotten though. Going out with a puff instead of a bang. :/
Spoiler: new pageMoney's just arrived? Well, they have about five minutes to rig Transylvito's portal just in time for Ceasar to fly through. Any bets on whether they're going to make it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narkis
Spoiler: New PageWait, so... this is happening before Caesar rushes the portal?
So at least that means they're sticking to Parson's scene for a while, right?
...why is everyone laughing? :smalltongue: