Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
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.
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.
- GlytchMeister
- Posts: 3733
- Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:52 pm
- Location: Central Illinois
- Contact:
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
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."
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!
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!
- Catawampus
- Posts: 2145
- Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:47 pm
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
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.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...
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.
- GlytchMeister
- Posts: 3733
- Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:52 pm
- Location: Central Illinois
- Contact:
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
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.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.
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!
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!
- AnotherFairportfan
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
Occam's Razor is the principle of parsimony - broadly stated "Do not multiply entities unnecessarily" - and it applies to more than problem-solving.Sidhekin wrote:That's not Occam's Razor.AnotherFairportfan wrote:Actually, it does apply - it's the principle of parsimony - assume no variance fro consensus reality that the author has not established.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.
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
- 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
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
"You should never run from the voices in your head. That's how you give them power." - Jin
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
But whatever you call it, "assume no variance fro consensus reality" is not it.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.Sidhekin wrote:That's not Occam's Razor.AnotherFairportfan wrote: Actually, it does apply - it's the principle of parsimony - assume no variance fro consensus reality that the author has not established.
perl -e 'print "Just another Perl ${\(trickster and hacker)},";'
The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
- AnotherFairportfan
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
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.Sidhekin wrote:But whatever you call it, "assume no variance fro consensus reality" is not it.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.
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
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"!
Or both.
ETA: Wait, "possibility"?! Make that "certainty"!
perl -e 'print "Just another Perl ${\(trickster and hacker)},";'
The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
- AnotherFairportfan
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
Now you're just multiplying entities unnecessarily.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"!
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
No, merely keeping an open mind.AnotherFairportfan wrote:Now you're just multiplying entities unnecessarily.
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!
The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
- AnotherFairportfan
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
There is a real world, and we live in it.Sidhekin wrote:No, merely keeping an open mind.AnotherFairportfan wrote:Now you're just multiplying entities unnecessarily.
I'd say the "consensus reality" and fictions' posited conformance to it are the entities produced by unnecessary multiplication.
That is consensus reality.
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
- Catawampus
- Posts: 2145
- Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:47 pm
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
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.
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.
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. . .AnotherFairportfan wrote:There is a real world, and we live in it.
That is consensus reality.
- AnotherFairportfan
- Posts: 6402
- Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 2:53 pm
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
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.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. . .
Proof Positive the world is not flat: If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now.
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
Minds are like parachutes — they function only when they are open.AnotherFairportfan wrote: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.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. . .
perl -e 'print "Just another Perl ${\(trickster and hacker)},";'
The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
- Catawampus
- Posts: 2145
- Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:47 pm
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
My point exactly.AnotherFairportfan wrote: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.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. . .
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.
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.Sidhekin wrote:Minds are like parachutes — they function only when they are open.
And a closed parachute makes a nice pillow.
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
*salutes*Catawampus wrote: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.Sidhekin wrote:Minds are like parachutes — they function only when they are open.
And a closed parachute makes a nice pillow.
perl -e 'print "Just another Perl ${\(trickster and hacker)},";'
The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
The Sidhekin proves that Sidhe did it!
- scantrontb
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:44 am
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
then again, they can do some SERIOUS DAMAGE before they go, too... Case in point: This guy.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.
Don't planto mihi adveho illac
- GlytchMeister
- Posts: 3733
- Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:52 pm
- Location: Central Illinois
- Contact:
Re: Favorite Brother 2015-04-21
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!
AAH HA HA HA HA HA HA!
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!
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!