Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Need to talk about the day's episode of Wapsi? This is the place to do it. Play nice! ^_^

Moderators: Bookworm, starkruzr, MrFireDragon, PrettyPrincess, Wapsi

Forum rules
When two threads are posted for a day's comic, the thread posted first becomes the starting post. Please delete the second thread and add your post to the first thread. When naming the thread: Comic Name YYYY-MM-DD
Thanks guys! This keeps the forum nice and neat.
User avatar
GlytchMeister
Posts: 3733
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Central Illinois
Contact:

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by GlytchMeister »

While some predictions that make multiple assumptions may end up being more accurate, in general, the fewer assumptions made in a prediction, the better.
That's the gist of it, so far as I can tell from a bit of googling.

There might be some confusion happening here with Bellisario's Maxim, my old enemy: "Don't examine this too closely."
He's mister GlytchMeister, he's mister code
He's mister exploiter, he's mister ones and zeros
They call me GlytchMeister, whatever I touch
Starts to glitch in my clutch!
I'm too much!
User avatar
Catawampus
Posts: 2145
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:47 pm

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by Catawampus »

AnotherFairportfan wrote:So, to get back to the chlorine - unless and until Paul comes up with a reason for and an explanation otherwise, that pool has chlorine in it and the question is how a gill-breathing creature survives immersion in it.

An explanation for that that sounded halfway-believable under suspension of disbelief (as opposed to disbelief hanged by the neck until dead) would be an interesting thing to come up with.

Like my explanation as to why passing spaceships in"Star Wars" make noise...
The main acute damage that chlorine does to fish is it oxidises their gill membranes, causing the gills to tear apart and the tissue to die. Which tends to leave the fish rather dismayed. Recommended chlorine levels in pools (as per agencies such as the CDC) is around 0.002 mg/L, while the general "tolerable" level for the average fish (according to such sources as the EPA) is around 0.01 mg/L.

Different aquatic critters with gills have different tolerances for chlorine. Something such as a salamander is extremely sensitive to even tiny amounts, and would not be able to survive at all in 0.002 mg/L. Others can survive in a hundred times the concentration that would kill a salamander. This wide range of tolerance has caused a good bit of trouble in studying the effects of chlorine on aquatic life and on setting acceptable levels in streams and lakes. It's entirely possible that merfolk are on the highly-tolerant side of the scale, to the point where spending an hour or two swimming in a moderately-chlorinated pool wouldn't cause any more damage to their gills than it does to the average human's eyes or nasal and throat membranes. Perhaps their gills are extra sturdy, and the reduced diffusion resulting from their sturdiness is offset by the merfolk also being able to use their lungs to absorb oxygen/remove waste products at the same time as they use their gills: they get two sets of breathing organs, as opposed the a fish's one set.
User avatar
GlytchMeister
Posts: 3733
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Central Illinois
Contact:

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by GlytchMeister »

Catawampus wrote:The main acute damage that chlorine does to fish is it oxidises their gill membranes, causing the gills to tear apart and the tissue to die. Which tends to leave the fish rather dismayed. Recommended chlorine levels in pools (as per agencies such as the CDC) is around 0.002 mg/L, while the general "tolerable" level for the average fish (according to such sources as the EPA) is around 0.01 mg/L.

Different aquatic critters with gills have different tolerances for chlorine. Something such as a salamander is extremely sensitive to even tiny amounts, and would not be able to survive at all in 0.002 mg/L. Others can survive in a hundred times the concentration that would kill a salamander. This wide range of tolerance has caused a good bit of trouble in studying the effects of chlorine on aquatic life and on setting acceptable levels in streams and lakes. It's entirely possible that merfolk are on the highly-tolerant side of the scale, to the point where spending an hour or two swimming in a moderately-chlorinated pool wouldn't cause any more damage to their gills than it does to the average human's eyes or nasal and throat membranes. Perhaps their gills are extra sturdy, and the reduced diffusion resulting from their sturdiness is offset by the merfolk also being able to use their lungs to absorb oxygen/remove waste products at the same time as they use their gills: they get two sets of breathing organs, as opposed the a fish's one set.
It could also be along the lines of merpeople having more sets of gills, to offset the reduced rate of diffusion from sturdier design. I'm not sure, though. Just judging by images I'm thinking of off the top of my head, I'd guess that the gill surface area to total body volume ratio of Jessie is significantly lower than your average fish. The neck is a relatively small part of the human body.
He's mister GlytchMeister, he's mister code
He's mister exploiter, he's mister ones and zeros
They call me GlytchMeister, whatever I touch
Starts to glitch in my clutch!
I'm too much!
User avatar
AnotherFairportfan
Posts: 6402
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by AnotherFairportfan »

Sidhekin wrote:
AnotherFairportfan wrote:
Sidhekin wrote:Occam's Razor really doesn't apply to fiction.

But fiction, as Twain, Clancy et al have noted, has to make sense. And while within the established setting, chlorinated water does, liquid fairy dust doesn't.
Actually, it does apply - it's the principle of parsimony - assume no variance fro consensus reality that the author has not established.
That's not Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor is the principle of parsimony - broadly stated "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily" - and it applies to more than problem-solving.
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
User avatar
jwhouk
Posts: 6053
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:58 am
Location: The Valley of the Sun, Arizona
Contact:

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by jwhouk »

I always thought it was "The simplest explanation is usually the right one."
"Character is what you are in the dark." - D.L. Moody
"You should never run from the voices in your head. That's how you give them power." - Jin
User avatar
Sidhekin
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by Sidhekin »

AnotherFairportfan wrote:
Sidhekin wrote:
AnotherFairportfan wrote: Actually, it does apply - it's the principle of parsimony - assume no variance fro consensus reality that the author has not established.
That's not Occam's Razor.
Occam's Razor is the principle of parsimony - broadly stated "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily" - and it applies to more than problem-solving.
But whatever you call it, "assume no variance fro consensus reality" is not it.
perl -e 'print "Just another Perl ${\(trickster and hacker)},";'

The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
User avatar
AnotherFairportfan
Posts: 6402
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by AnotherFairportfan »

Sidhekin wrote:
AnotherFairportfan wrote: Occam's Razor is the principle of parsimony - broadly stated "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily" - and it applies to more than problem-solving.
But whatever you call it, "assume no variance fro consensus reality" is not it.
Yes it is - because assuming variance from consensus reality when none has been stated is multiplying entities unnecessarily in the analysis of the storyline - and analysis (of anything) is precisely what Occam's Razor was proposed to simplify.
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
User avatar
Sidhekin
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by Sidhekin »

You're ignoring the possibility that "consensus reality" is multiplying entities unnecessarily – or failing to multiply entities necessarily.

Or both.

ETA: Wait, "possibility"?! Make that "certainty"!
perl -e 'print "Just another Perl ${\(trickster and hacker)},";'

The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
User avatar
AnotherFairportfan
Posts: 6402
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by AnotherFairportfan »

Sidhekin wrote:You're ignoring the possibility that "consensus reality" is multiplying entities unnecessarily – or failing to multiply entities necessarily.

Or both.

ETA: Wait, "possibility"?! Make that "certainty"!
Now you're just multiplying entities unnecessarily.
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
User avatar
Sidhekin
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by Sidhekin »

AnotherFairportfan wrote:Now you're just multiplying entities unnecessarily.
No, merely keeping an open mind.

I'd say the "consensus reality" and fictions' posited conformance to it are the entities produced by unnecessary multiplication.
perl -e 'print "Just another Perl ${\(trickster and hacker)},";'

The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
User avatar
AnotherFairportfan
Posts: 6402
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by AnotherFairportfan »

Sidhekin wrote:
AnotherFairportfan wrote:Now you're just multiplying entities unnecessarily.
No, merely keeping an open mind.

I'd say the "consensus reality" and fictions' posited conformance to it are the entities produced by unnecessary multiplication.
There is a real world, and we live in it.

That is consensus reality.
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
User avatar
Catawampus
Posts: 2145
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:47 pm

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by Catawampus »

The problem with Occam's Razor is that there isn't just one Occam's Razor. After something like seven hundred years of analysis and adaption, it has changed a bit.

In Occam's writings, it was basically saying that when you have more than one possible theory, each of them already complete and apparently equally probable, then you ought to go with the one that has the least number of assumptions in it. It didn't have anything to do with creating theories, or with which theory was actually correct, it was just about determining which one you should go ahead and work with.

The principle has been used in practice, however, in other ways. It has been used as a method for creating theories, not just choosing between theories that are already extant. In this usage, Occam's Razor means to create a theory with the least number of assumptions and unknowns thrown in as fixes. Other philosophers and logicians have come up with other ways of using Occam's Razor, too.

So really, you're all right in your argument about what it means.
AnotherFairportfan wrote:There is a real world, and we live in it.

That is consensus reality.
But our perception of reality is an artificial construct based upon our own personal sampling of reality through the filter of our own senses and consciousness. . .
User avatar
AnotherFairportfan
Posts: 6402
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by AnotherFairportfan »

Catawampus wrote:But our perception of reality is an artificial construct based upon our own personal sampling of reality through the filter of our own senses and consciousness. . .
I invite you to re-assert that after stepping out of an airplane at Angels 20, sincerely believing that you don't need a parachute.
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
User avatar
Sidhekin
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by Sidhekin »

AnotherFairportfan wrote:
Catawampus wrote:But our perception of reality is an artificial construct based upon our own personal sampling of reality through the filter of our own senses and consciousness. . .
I invite you to re-assert that after stepping out of an airplane at Angels 20, sincerely believing that you don't need a parachute.
Minds are like parachutes — they function only when they are open.
perl -e 'print "Just another Perl ${\(trickster and hacker)},";'

The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
User avatar
Catawampus
Posts: 2145
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:47 pm

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by Catawampus »

AnotherFairportfan wrote:
Catawampus wrote:But our perception of reality is an artificial construct based upon our own personal sampling of reality through the filter of our own senses and consciousness. . .
I invite you to re-assert that after stepping out of an airplane at Angels 20, sincerely believing that you don't need a parachute.
My point exactly.

There is a real world, in which (as far as we are able to tell) simply stepping out of an airplane at high altitude would be inadvisable for anybody wanting to stay in good health. Yet I'd be willing to bet that there have been plenty people who would sincerely believe that they would simply float down to the ground safely, or that they'd sprout wings, or that the Divine Hand of God would reach down and save them, or whatever. If nothing else, the 1960's would have provided millions of instances where people would think such things at least temporarily.

Even assuming that we're able to work out just what the consensus of opinion is on any particular point of reality (which isn't a given, seeing as how we can only really see our own perception of others' perceptions, not their actual perceptions themselves), that doesn't mean that reality cares that we've taken a vote and has decided to change itself to meet our own changing opinion of what is real.

So there is a real world, but the real world and the popular perception of the real world are two different things. Hopefully the latter is based firmly on the former, since it's all that we have to work with. I suppose that people who have a perceived reality too different from actual reality would be less likely to survive all that long, so that would tend to tip the general balance more towards the “closer to reality” viewpoint.
Sidhekin wrote:Minds are like parachutes — they function only when they are open.
Of course, a parachute that opens improperly isn't very helpful, while one that is open all of the time would be a considerable hindrance.

And a closed parachute makes a nice pillow.
User avatar
Sidhekin
Posts: 568
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Bergen, Norway
Contact:

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by Sidhekin »

Catawampus wrote:
Sidhekin wrote:Minds are like parachutes — they function only when they are open.
Of course, a parachute that opens improperly isn't very helpful, while one that is open all of the time would be a considerable hindrance.

And a closed parachute makes a nice pillow.
*salutes*
perl -e 'print "Just another Perl ${\(trickster and hacker)},";'

The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
User avatar
scantrontb
Posts: 1000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:44 am

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by scantrontb »

Catawampus wrote:So there is a real world, but the real world and the popular perception of the real world are two different things. Hopefully the latter is based firmly on the former, since it's all that we have to work with. I suppose that people who have a perceived reality too different from actual reality would be less likely to survive all that long, so that would tend to tip the general balance more towards the “closer to reality” viewpoint.
then again, they can do some SERIOUS DAMAGE before they go, too... Case in point: This guy.
Don't planto mihi adveho illac
User avatar
TazManiac
Posts: 3701
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 6:53 pm

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by TazManiac »

dude...
User avatar
GlytchMeister
Posts: 3733
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Central Illinois
Contact:

Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21

Post by GlytchMeister »

One shudders to imagine what inhuman thoughts lie behind that mask... What dreams of chronic and sustained cruelty...


AAH HA HA HA HA HA HA! :twisted:
He's mister GlytchMeister, he's mister code
He's mister exploiter, he's mister ones and zeros
They call me GlytchMeister, whatever I touch
Starts to glitch in my clutch!
I'm too much!
Post Reply