Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Tonot » Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:42 am

Sir Shadow wrote: kind of grammar check attached to their brains that make them automatically infallible in that regard.



:o OH that makes me wish I had studied harder at school. That is a valid line of research for a Geneticist, all humans should be retro-fitted with one of them immediately if not sooner.
Tonot
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:06 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Justyn » Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:44 am

Oberon wrote:You are truly pathetic. You can't even use 'canon' correctly. You utterly fail. Canon does not require Word of God or "Rob's acceptance", canon is simply what is shown in the comic. You know, like how Charlie hacked the eyebooks ("No hacks!" cried Kreistor-fail, "It was Jack all along! Jack told Charlie!"). That is canon.

And I've got to say, for you to quote a definition in one post and in the very next post to argue that the words you quoted don't mean what they really mean is a new low, even for someone of your limited intellect and principles. But I'm not surprised. As I said before, you will twist words, reverse yourself, lie, make up definitions, renounce your own sources, or just fill the page with a fantastic amount of bullshit before you'll ever admit that you are wrong. It's pathological.

You are a complete tool. You should seek counseling at the earliest opportunity.

But you are a clever kind of idiot. Your "mia culpa" proves that. As Sir Shadow pointed out, you had been walked very carefully through the reasons why you were wrong pages ago. You were just too interested in refusing to accept it to understand those reasons. Perhaps I've managed to kick something loose up in that rust trap of yours. You may thank me at your leisure.


I'm not stating this on an official level, but please try to remember that the forum rules basically boil down to "don't be a dick". Two wrongs don't make a right; just because you're arguing with someone whom you believe to be acting in bad faith doesn't give you justification to act that way as well. This applies to everyone involved in this; I'm quoting Oberon's post because it's the most recent one in the thread at the time I started writing this, not because I'm singling him out.
If I am acting as a mod, you will know it.
Justyn
Tool + YOTD + Pins Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:22 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lilwik » Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:22 am

Oberon wrote:And once again, you cannot 'forswear' to speak of something, because speaking of something isn't a bad habit. It's simply not correct usage of the word for the context.
That's not simple at all. Simple would be looking the word up in the dictionary and discovering its meaning there. No dictionary that I've looked in backs you up, so you're clearly using some obscure reference to justify your claim. Where can we find that?
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby tegid » Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:45 am

Feedback:
I am liking this format, both the regular text+pictures and the 'illustrated audiobook' (and I usually don't like audiobooks!)

The art is also very good, and I personally like it a lot. It is less detailed but I think in the comic it could be very expressive and maybe dynamic. The coloring is perhaps what I find a bit inconsistent: in some parts it does not really work, in others it is excellent (Jack's face in the second image of this epilogue works really well with the soft lights and shadows).
tegid
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby 0beron » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:27 am

Thanks Justyn, for both that info about Rob and the wiki (not an intrusion at all, I assumed that because he's so busy he simply never had time for the wiki, which is totally understandable) and also for the gentle reminder about etiquette.
"I'm afraid I don't understand. And also afraid that I do."
GJC wrote:Two guys with basically the same name in a discussion about a character getting cloned.
There's gotta be a good joke in here somewhere.
User avatar
0beron
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 3164
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:52 pm
Location: Morlock Wells

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby MarbitChow » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:31 am

(This is a repeat, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to need it again in the future... )

Image
User avatar
MarbitChow
 
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:41 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Kreistor » Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:40 am

0beron wrote:Thanks Justyn, for both that info about Rob and the wiki (not an intrusion at all, I assumed that because he's so busy he simply never had time for the wiki, which is totally understandable) and also for the gentle reminder about etiquette.


The idea for the Wiki was simple. It was open for anyone to do anything. Rob was heavy into the Creative Commons License at the time, and wanted to apply it fully by giving us complete control over the Wiki. Which I admit annoyed me. I wanted the Wiki to serve a purpose, specifically, to be a resource to new readers to guide them to the known Rules and most common ideas, so that we weren't always saying the same counter-points about common misconceptions that lead to bad speculation. I imagined every statement having reference links to the comic to support them (Wikipedia was working on that at the time), and so forth. I was hoping, essentially, that it would be a kind of tech support that people could use to find the references for the beliefs they held about the comic, so they didn't have to hunt through the comic to find obscure references to accepted Rules.

Thus, anyone was allowed to create anything on the Wiki. Rob wanted people to create their own Sides, people, places, etc., and he might even incorporate some of them into the comic.

But I and others also sought to insert the known people, physics and creatures of Erfwrld into the Wiki. The process we were given for Canon was simple. We would write articles, Rob would review them, and anything we wrote that was Canon Rob would move to the Canon section of that article. That was what he asked us to do, and so we complied with his wishes. Anywhere in the Wiki you see something in a "Canon" section, it's because Rob either wrote it or advanced it from our identification. Usually, anything we recommended that made Canon was heavily edited, and in my opinion weakened. He seems to prefer breathing room, and less constriction, so our Proposed Canon became a lot less foundational.

The big problem we faced when it came to Canon, though, is that most people don't organize what they do. The alternate content creators didn't face that, because one guy created a ton of stuff early with fairly good organization, which others copied as a model. But if you go back to pages about Rules and so forth, they were a mess: they lacked any kind of structure. Identifying potential Canon and striping out the really unsupportable Speculation became necessary, not just to save Rob time, but also because the wild speculation was not identifiable from known Canon. So I began the effort to reorganize a lot of the major pages, and I tried to use a Game Rules format as a theme. Rather than being a collection of random relevant statements, the Game Rules format provided a Foundation most people would recognize and accept as appropriate. Since all of the editing history is still there, you can go back and see what the pages were like before my organization effort. Rob did advance some of it to Canon, but most pages have a Proposed Canon section that has not advanced. My page-by-page organization split the statements into three parts.
1. Proposed Canon. Anything requiring no entity invention.
2. Speculation. Anything that required some entity invention.
3. Removed. Anything that was just wishful thinking, or largely Invention. Some of this was a reasonable prediction, so I moved the text to the Discussion page, with notes to return it if certain facts I deemed reasonable came to light.

The difference between 2 and 3 is, of course, entirely opinion based, but that did not lead to any complaints. People that proposed wild speculation tended not to stay on teh Wiki anyway: they posted their pet theory, and then never came back to check on it.The problems came in due to basic Speculation arguments from regulars, who didn't like other people contradicting or countering their beliefs. People don't like their ideas being criticized, so with no hierarchy, you got people putting the same text on and seeing it taken off minutes later by the opposition. As I said before, this came to a head on the Arkenhammer page, and Forum Moderators eventually stepped in. Since then, Wiki activity has been small, and I'm not about to step back over there until I'm reasonably certain others won't try to use it as a weapon against me, as happened once before.

As for the alternate content... there was a bit of an argument about how to deal with it. Alternate content was not being identified as such, so we had cases where new readers jumped to the Wiki and confused some of these pages with real content: a fan-created character had the same format as one of Rob's. The initial freedom Rob gave us permitted such. One of the content creators finally admitted that it was hampering new readers, so proposed a page identification mechanism that would make their alternate content more visibly identifiable. Rob agreed to it. And then it all quickly died. After that initial flurry of creativity, it just stopped. Maybe there was too much arguing from the Speculators. Or maybe it's just hard to do what Rob seems to do so easily: create characters that incorporate modern reference. I wasn't a part of that, so I don't know what inspired the end of creativity. I only know that it's still perfectly acceptable to create complete Fan-invented Sides on the Wiki.

If anyone wants to revive that old Fan created content, look up the Rules for it on the Wiki. I believe you identify it as "Fanon", but it's been years, so i may have gotten the term incorrect.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby themysticalone » Mon Aug 19, 2013 12:06 pm

Oberon wrote:And once again, you cannot 'forswear' to speak of something, because speaking of something isn't a bad habit. It's simply not correct usage of the word for the context.


I don't know why you are focusing on 'bad habit' (or injurious), since that was merely part of an example of usage in the cited 'definition #1'.

I can forswear having sex with my wife, or forswear complimenting her (though either would be a stupid thing to do) just as easily as I can forswear binge-drinking alcohol (were that something I ever did). I could also forswear speaking of the events of X (where X is whatever specific circumstance).
Read Fodi at baldninja.com
User avatar
themysticalone
 
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:33 pm
Location: Pennsylvanialand

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby drachefly » Mon Aug 19, 2013 1:48 pm

Alberich foreswore love to pick up the Rheingold.
User avatar
drachefly
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1643
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Shai_hulud » Mon Aug 19, 2013 2:11 pm

To be fair, love is a bad habit.
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Kreistor » Mon Aug 19, 2013 3:53 pm

Lilwik wrote:
Kreistor wrote:The fundamental flaw in it is that "simple" is not objective, which leads to arguments about the nature of "simplicity".
I don't see how that is a problem. The real fundamental flaw is that being simple doesn't actually lead to correctness. The subjective nature of simplicity is merely an acknowledgement of practicality; discovering truths about the universe is difficult, but if Occam's razor were really a tool that could be directly used to discover truth then all of science would just be an exercise in determining what is simplest. If simplicity were purely objective then all truths would be easily and immediately discovered. Since discovering truths is difficult, the fallacy would have no ground to stand on if deciding what was simplest weren't difficult.


Remember that Occam's Razor predates science by centuries. It isn't really as useful in the modern world where we have an expectation of experimentation in order to determine scientific fact. But it is useful in cases like novels and stories, where we cannot experiment or apply the scientific method, and are kept in the dark by authors. Some method of sorting out wild speculation from reasonable analysis is useful. In that light, Occam's Razor also presents a challenge to the analyst by promoting an achievable metric. The Razor retains real world usefulness when selecting between possible explanations or courses of action. The suggestion with the fewest invented entities has the fewest experiments to run to prove a theory. If you are a cop with 5 suspects, do you first investigate the guy that needs access to a car that can do 60 mph to reach the scene first, or the guy that needs a helicopter and a boat? Sure, the second guy may have buddies named T.C. and Rick, but you're going to look at the guy that only needed a car, and compare tire tracks in the driveway before trying to find out where the heli and boat were. That's Occam's Razor in action, even if you don't know you're using it.

I like to use the Battlestar Gallactica redux as an example of the futility of Speculation, though. The new version had 13 android cylons that intermingled with the human population. By the last season, 12 had been identified, but 1 remained for the writers to reveal, which happened in Ep 1. In the end-of-episode wrap-up, they revealed how they determined who would be the final cylon. They cruised all the fan forums, blogs, and sci fi shows. They wrote down every name anyone had stated was the last cylon. Their intent was to choose from all the ones that hadn't been selected. In the end, there was only one name left -- a generally disliked character that had died mid-way through the previous season. Conveniently, there was a Cylon resurrection ship nearby, and back she came, much to everyone's surprise. But that was the point, wasn't it? They wanted to surprise everyone, and they could only do that by picking someone no one predicted.

So, yes, to a certain extent, because what we speculate about is in the hands of a human that can make decisions that intentionally screw with speculators, speculation can be moot. But not always. There's another type of author.

A few legal cases have been launched by fanfic writers based on violations of copyright against the authors they borrow characters and worlds from. Literally, someone else writes a speculative story about a famous author's characters, sees some elements of that story used for the next novel, then launches a claim of violation of copyright for the storyline. In order to counter this, many authors have taken to ignoring all fanfic, blogs, and sites in order to stay away from fan speculation. If they didn't read it, they couldn't have stolen it, and the case gets thrown out. In an environment like this, the author is ignoring speculators, and this places us in a situation where speculation can be correct, and Occam's Razor becomes useful. If you are ever sending an author a suggestion, always provide a statement that rescinds your claims of ownership as the first paragraph, or the author may close your email unread. By doing so, I have had some influence on some of my favorite flash games, and possibly the author of one of my favorite webcomics wrote himself out of a corner with my suggestion. Or he came up with it himself.

What about Rob? A couple of times, Rob seems to have paid attention to the community. The term "decrypted" for instance first appeared in the response thread to Ansom's resurrection. I could not say for certain, of course, but it is possible that the term was better than Rob's, and he changed the lettering at the last moment on the next comic to use the fan suggestion. (Or the other way around... the fan had been talking to him and it was leaked.) And we know with certainty that Red was decrypted in response to the immense fan interest in the red-haired warlord later revealed to be named Sylvia. Rob does listen to us, and he does consider our points of view.

Rob isn't like the BSG authors, nor like those that ignore fans. Speculation is promoted, as is fan content. He may yet decide to pull a BSG and undermine all Spec, or even someone specifically, but from everything he has said, I don't think he intends to. So, that leaves us the opportunity to Speculate accurately and that opens the door to Occam's Razor. After all, what objective metric remains to analyze speculation by? We can see how ineffective "opinion" is just by examining this forum. People will attack speculation and ideas because of who authored them, not because the ideas are in fact wrong. If we had held an opinion based vote on how Parson was going to survive, the number of people screaming for the "Parson creates a new Side" faction would have grossly outnumbered the people supporting the "Stanley moves Capital" faction. And we know how that turned out. In the end, the "Stanley moves Side" solution had the least entity invention, requiring only a motive for Stanley to do it. Parson creating a new Side required defining elements in the Summoning Spell to permit the thought, in Parson's motivation to jump from "I don't want to be CW" all the way to "I want to be a Ruler", in Stanley's motive to watch his CW burn and lose all that he had gained, and in Sizemore's choice to Turn to Parson's Side. By Occam's, the answer was plain. By Opinion, the answer was wrong.

that isn't to say that Occam's is always correct. It is a guide, not a Prophet of God. It gives us a metric to aim for, by asking us to minimize the elements we need to invent to choose a course of action in the face of insufficient evidence. That is, in the end, our world. It does not tell us everything we want to know as accurately as we require. And so we must act upon the limited information we have. There are far worse methods of choice than Occam's Razor.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lilwik » Mon Aug 19, 2013 5:13 pm

Kreistor wrote:By Occam's, the answer was plain. By Opinion, the answer was wrong. That isn't to say that Occam's is always correct.
That's not how Occam's razor is supposed to be used. Occam's razor is always correct because Occam's razor doesn't claim to tell people what's true. For example, suppose you have three conflicting theories to explain something: A, B, and C. Based on all the available evidence, any one of the theories might be true, but A is very simple, B is moderately complicated, and C is so complicated that no one really understands it. The only thing that Occam's razor tells you is that you should assume that A is the true theory until it is proven otherwise. Occam's razer doesn't say that A is actually true, and so A being false doesn't make Occam's razor wrong. Occam's razor was right because simple theories have enormous advantages; they give us quick answers and leave our minds free to explore new questions, so choosing A was the right choice even though it ended badly.

Since we have no power to perform experiments in Erfworld, science isn't very practical for the questions we most want to answer. If we want to get beyond the presented facts and speculate, then we should keep Occam's razor in mind, but realize that it's not very useful. All it tells us is that if we want to use speculation as a foundation for more speculation, then we should choose the simplest speculations rather than the more complicated speculations. What we really want to do is get inside the author's mind and try to guess what he wants to tell us. For that purpose, I like Like Reality Unless Noted; it is far more useful than Occam's razor for speculating about Erfworld.

If we want to predict what characters will do, then we should try to get into the heads of the characters, not use Occam's razer. Not all characters always tend to do the simplest things, and guessing that they will is simply a failure to properly get into their heads. The reason why it was silly to predict that Parson would start his own side is because Parson has magically enforced loyalty to Stanley as part of the summoning spell, not because of Occam's razor.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Kreistor » Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:37 pm

As I have stated repeatedly, the "simple" model is modern Occam's, not the historic version I use. While often they appear similar, the original does not attempt to evaluate "simplicity". Simplicity can be affected by education, talent, innate understanding, and even savantism. A flash of insight may give you the understanding to think a complicated solution is simple, and as I just pulled, one misinterpreted pronoun can lead to a simple solution appearing complicated.

The original Occam that I use looks at how much is invented to explain a phenomenon. Take the case we have done to death above -- Charlie's knowledge of Parson's plan to reach Spacerock through the MK. There are multiple explanations.

1) Charlie tapped Maggie's line from Parson to Wanda.

While some seem to think this is Canon, at no point is Charlie ever known to be capable of doing this. That is, until Maggie suggests Thinkamancy is an insecure means of communication in her text about G-strings, which occurs later. It is interesting to note that the info she provides on her G-string is identical to what Parson just gave Wanda, so if Maggie beleives Charlie can hack that, there was no reason to put it on the G-string, was there? This method invents one entity -- it requires the Arkendish to have the power to tap Thinkamancy.

2) Archons overheard Wanda's call and told Charlie.

While Thinkamancy can choose for a message to have one or more observers, we don't know that the Parson to Wanda call is public or private. If it was Public, any nearby Archon could contact Charlie. We know they are conflicted over their allegiance but we don't know how far that goes toward Duty. This one chooses one of two options, and invents an Archon conflicted enough to inform on GK.

3) Wanda told Charlie

This of course invents Wanda as a mole. This is surprisingly easy, since we already know that she has accidentally betrayed FAQ to Stanley, and may have been involved in Stanley's rise to Overlord. Charlie, as a Arkentool wielder, was a potential source for the one she attuned to, so any number of deals may have been struck between the two. It does invent such a deal, so there is creation.

Of course, there are lots more. I only need a few to demonstrate the historical Occam's Razor on.

So, by your standards, which ones are "complicated" and which "simple"? That's rhetorical. What I'm showing is that without a metric for simplicity, any solution is essentially "simple" to its presenter, but can be anything depending on the reader's perspective and favoritism. People that don't want to believe Wanda could be that much of a traitor would call #3 complicated, but those that dislike her would see it as simple. The Presenter, of course, is always going to believe in its simplicity and elegance, since to him (rightly or not) it solves all the problems he seems to detect. Getting into an argument with such a person based on claims of a solution being "complicated" only leads to discussion and insult about people's intelligence.

The original Occam Razor metric, by evaluating the inventions necessary to explain the events, discounts #2, because it has essentially two invented entities, as noted. #3 and #1 each require only 1, but the one in #3 has no parallel, and Wanda's betrayal of GK should show up in other Story elements where her information leads to Charlie's inexplicable involvement. #1 then becomes the most likely solution, since it only really extends the Arkendish powers along known lines (parallels tapping Eyebooks). Later, we get additional support in its presumed ability to cut off Parson (which is actually jamming, a different ability altogether, but a thematic one to Earthworld radar dishes). We still don't have an explanation for why Maggie is trying to hide information that presumably she should suspect Charlie has already tapped.

So, therein lies the rub. You cite "simplicity", but many of the speculation we discuss has no "simplicity" to debate, since it requires invented entities, not complication of action by characters.

As for "Like Reality", sorry, but that is again leading into argument. How our world works is often as much a matter of debate as levels of simplicity. And it is a temporal issue. I got into one argument here because I was taught geology 20 years before my opponent. Between when I went to school and the opponent did, the nature of the outer mantle of Earth had altered from magma to a liquid-like rocky/gravel state, and I was unaware. What is Real isn't subjective, but it is irrelevant. The actual answer is "What does Rob think is real?" If Rob learned as I was taught, his model of Erfworld's mantle is unintentionally not current, which may lead to error involving something like a volcano exploding. In the case of another author I read, despite studying it, he misunderstood the fundamental nature of electrical flow. So reality, in comics, simply cannot be assumed to be Earth-like, and primarily because it is coming to us via Rob, and not science textbooks. Comic authors are artists, not scientists, so their Physics will have more to do with Hollywood than Oxford.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lilwik » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:23 pm

Kreistor wrote:As I have stated repeatedly, the "simple" model is modern Occam's, not the historic version I use. While often they appear similar, the original does not attempt to evaluate "simplicity". Simplicity can be affected by education, talent, innate understanding, and even savantism. A flash of insight may give you the understanding to think a complicated solution is simple, and as I just pulled, one misinterpreted pronoun can lead to a simple solution appearing complicated.
When you're using Occam's razor correctly it doesn't matter how you evaluate simplicity. Occam's razor is just a guideline to help you choose between conflicting theories, and it says that you should choose whichever is easiest for you to work with. Whether it's easy because of a flash of insight or because of few required entities really doesn't matter. Think of the many interpretations of quantum physics; each person is free to use whichever one makes the most sense to that person, and that's Occam's razor.

Kreistor wrote:So, by your standards, which ones are "complicated" and which "simple"?
It doesn't matter which is complicated and which is simple because Occam's razor isn't a tool for deciding which theory is most likely. Using Occam's razor to estimate probabilities is an abuse that comes from misunderstanding of Occam's razor.

Kreistor wrote:#1 then becomes the most likely solution, since it only really extends the Arkendish powers along known lines (parallels tapping Eyebooks).
This is exactly the kind of abuse of Occam's razor that I'm talking about. Occam's razor says nothing about which theories are most likely. Why would simplicity or using few entities have any connection to truth? Reality is often complicated. Remember Newtonian physics and how simple that is, but it turned out to be only an approximation and the real truth is far more complicated. That's not a failure of Occam's razor; that is a lesson that teaches us not to abuse Occam's razor as evidence in support of a theory.

Kreistor wrote:You cite "simplicity", but many of the speculation we discuss has no "simplicity" to debate, since it requires invented entities, not complication of action by characters.
Neither simplicity nor the number of invented entities is worth debating because they aren't useful in predicting what will happen next nor what is in the mind of the author.

Kreistor wrote:Comic authors are artists, not scientists, so their Physics will have more to do with Hollywood than Oxford.
They don't always do all the necessary research, but if you are trying to make predictions about what future pages will reveal you need to work with probabilities. The odds that the author will get something right are always going to be greater than the odds of him getting a thing wrong in some specific way. You may be able to safely guess that the author will make some mistakes, but it would be a Herculean feat to guess the details of those mistakes, so we're better off assuming that he'll get things right. This is why Like Reality Unless Noted is useful in a way that Occam's razor never can be.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Justyn » Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:40 pm

Kreistor wrote:which may lead to error involving something like a volcano exploding.


Gobwin Knob is a stratovolcano, which are fairly likely to erupt explosively as a result of extreme pressure buildup from extremely viscous felsic magma such as the cases of Mount St. Helens or Krakatoa.
If I am acting as a mod, you will know it.
Justyn
Tool + YOTD + Pins Supporter!
Tool + YOTD + Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:22 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Kreistor » Mon Aug 19, 2013 10:26 pm

Lilwik wrote:It doesn't matter which is complicated and which is simple because Occam's razor isn't a tool for deciding which theory is most likely. Using Occam's razor to estimate probabilities is an abuse that comes from misunderstanding of Occam's razor.


I'm sorry, but yes, absolutely it is. Occam's Razor never intended to select what is "true". It selects between competing theories in the face of a lack of evidence.

Wikipedia wrote:Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham, and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.


"should be selected" not "is true".

http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/occams-razor-what/ wrote:I am sure I am taking my own poetic license in understanding the principle and internalizing it but Occam's Razor is always at the back of my mind because it reminds me that often we need to simplify our thinking. The simpler the explanation the more likely it is better than a complex one.


"more likely", which matches my terminology exactly.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html wrote:It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.


"shave off those concepts" in exactly the way I described reducing the number of invented entities.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/occam%27s%20razor wrote:a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities


"preferred", not "is true".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Occam%27s+razor wrote:the principle in philosophy and science that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity, and hence the simplest of several hypotheses is always the best in accounting for unexplained facts.


"always the best", not "is true".

How many more quotes do I need? They all say exactly the same thing. Merriam Webster is in there. Web philosophers. Online dictionaries. Do your own searches, boys and girls. Library is down the street from you. I do my homework. I know that Occam's Razor selects the most likely answer, which can be used when you have to choose despite a lack of evidence. It's less important here on a comic, but when you're trying to find your way out of a burning building, are you going to trust your gut (the way Ayn rand warns not to), or are you going to use some standard to try to figure out which exit is the most likely unblocked by fire? Any standard is better than blind luck, but Occam's Razor will reduce the number of risks you take, because each assumption you make is one more place fire may be.

At no time, ever, do any of these definitions mention the word "truth". It is about what is most likely. It is about reducing the number of assumptions (invented entities). It is about dealing with unknown cause. But it never selects what is true, because each assumption made can be wrong.

="Lilwik"]
Kreistor wrote:Comic authors are artists, not scientists, so their Physics will have more to do with Hollywood than Oxford.
They don't always do all the necessary research, but if you are trying to make predictions about what future pages will reveal you need to work with probabilities. The odds that the author will get something right are always going to be greater than the odds of him getting a thing wrong in some specific way. You may be able to safely guess that the author will make some mistakes, but it would be a Herculean feat to guess the details of those mistakes, so we're better off assuming that he'll get things right. This is why Like Reality Unless Noted is useful in a way that Occam's razor never can be.


If you're good enough to predict when some aspect of Physics will become necessary, go right ahead and assume Earthworld Physics, but gravity has already demonstrated that Earthworld Physics gets a random number generator treatment. I'm going to assume a game-like RNG model for anything with multiple outcomes, personally, since that continues the theme Rob already created.

Justyn wrote:
Kreistor wrote:which may lead to error involving something like a volcano exploding.


Gobwin Knob is a stratovolcano, which are fairly likely to erupt explosively as a result of extreme pressure buildup from extremely viscous felsic magma such as the cases of Mount St. Helens or Krakatoa.


I'd love to agree with you, but... it's magic. Sizemore was not restricted to Earthworld physics in casting a distinctly unnatural spell. The major difference in what happened vs. your citation is that the eruption is drawn as yellow and red, which is lava exploding up and out, where St. Helens and Krakatoa were rock being pulverized and exploding into clouds of rock dust by the pressure of subterranean laval, not surface explosive lava. We have excellent images of St. Helens because that eruption was forewarned, and so we can readily see in the stop image captures that there was no lava eruption as there was at the Knob. Even with Krakatoa, no lava is thought to have erupted above water. As a spell rather than natural event, it's allowed to not match our Earthworld expectations, just as Pew Pew zap-guns don't exist here. Sizemore and Wanda are shown manipulating the lava chamber directly; consequently, a lava eruption rather than rock explosion is permissible. And, let's not forget, that a lava pool still exists at GK, which does not occur on stratovolcanoes due to the tendency of that lava to quickly cool and harden. It takes low viscosity shield volcano lava to retain such a pool.

Basically, GK shows evidence of being a stratovolcano in shape, but is currently a shield volcano in function.
http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/TBFGK_1 Here you can find all comic pages written as text for convenient quoting.

http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Erfworld_Mechanics The starting page for accessing all known Erfworld "rules".
User avatar
Kreistor
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 6:59 pm
Location: K-W, Ontario, Canada

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Lilwik » Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:07 pm

Kreistor wrote:
http://www.kaushik.net/avinash/occams-razor-what/ wrote:The simpler the explanation the more likely it is better than a complex one.
"more likely", which matches my terminology exactly.
No, it's being used differently. You say the explanation with fewer entities is more likely. Kaushik says that the simpler explanation is more likely to be better. When you say that something is "likely", you mean that it is likely true. Kaushik is talking about which explanation is better and should be preferred, which is different from being true. The whole point of Occam's razor is to explain the difference between a good explanation and a true explanation. Often you will be faced with many explanations with no way of knowing which might be true, and Occam's razor just says that if you can't figure out which explanation is true then pick the simplest one and pretend that it is true until proven otherwise, because the simplest explanation is the best one even though it might turn out to be false later.

Kreistor wrote:How many more quotes do I need? They all say exactly the same thing.
They all get it right. I'm just trying to point out the difference between the things you are quoting and the things you are writing yourself.

Kreistor wrote:I know that Occam's Razor selects the most likely answer.
It doesn't count as knowledge if it's not true.

Kreistor wrote:It's less important here on a comic, but when you're trying to find your way out of a burning building, are you going to trust your gut (the way Ayn rand warns not to), or are you going to use some standard to try to figure out which exit is the most likely unblocked by fire?
I suspect that Occam's razor was never designed to get people out of burning buildings. If it works well for that, I'm glad to hear it, but it's just a coincidence.

Kreistor wrote:At no time, ever, do any of these definitions mention the word "truth".
That's because the definitions you quoted get it right.

Kreistor wrote:It is about what is most likely.
When you say something is most likely you are talking about truth, or at least probability.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1324
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Shai_hulud » Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:11 pm

Basically, GK shows evidence of being a stratovolcano in shape, but is currently a shield volcano in function.
Except the lava isn't cooling for reasons that might actually be magic. I'm not sure how exactly analogous real world geology is, just like we know cells exist in erfworlders bodies, but we don't know how those cells work or if they have, say, DNA. Not just talking to Kreistor with this one for the record.
Shai_hulud
Pins Supporter!
Pins Supporter!
 
Posts: 698
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2012 11:57 pm

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Tonot » Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:04 am

Lilwik wrote:It doesn't matter which is complicated and which is simple because Occam's razor isn't a tool for deciding which theory is most likely. Using Occam's razor to estimate probabilities is an abuse that comes from misunderstanding of Occam's razor.


This. This, this, a thousand times this.
Tonot
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:06 am

Re: Book 2 – Epilogue 02 – Jack Decrypted

Postby Oberon » Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:06 am

Kreistor wrote:Pages and pages of utter BS. And then he cites Ayn Rand, who's most famous book had as it's central story line how if you were rich that it didn't matter if you violated your marriage vows, because rich people are above morals. And then some drivel about how rich people took real good care of their workers and didn't need the government to poke their noses in at all, no thank you very much! Which is of course quite contrary to, well, all history, but that never stopped a fantasy author before, not even one posing as a philosopher.
Do you ever stop to think that what you're posting is completely irrelevant? I'll be more concise: Do you ever stop to think?
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests