Inner Peace (Through Superior Firepower) – Episode 024

[0beron]

Wanda latest fate was to get an arkentool.. she got one.. Now her fate might have been accomplished and so she could die in book 2. She did a lot of killing in book 2 so her number is getting closer to 0 extremely fast.

Does it work like that?

The way I understood it, she (or rather, the Erfworld around her) started out with a dept equaling her value, and the deaths of living units (or other positives being 'returned to 0') in relation to her are what pays this depth off.

Killing might actually be good for her survivability-by-numbers. Decrypting, on the other hand, probably worsens things a lot.

This is all very tricky stuff that could go either way.

On the one hand, you could be right that her debt is gradually paid off with every unit she kills. I suppose this could make sense from a Numbers perspective, as the loss of those units' values helps balance the total value of Erfworld.

On the other hand, the text mentions that the buyer of this unit was getting "far more than they paid for" suggesting that someone who benefits from having Wanda may eventually be the one to pay that balance due. If this is the case, I would even wonder if all the units she kills and/or Decrypts actually increase her debt, or were included in it in the first place as part of her lifelong value.

[0beron]

I have a hard time figuring out where non-reflected Wanda actually is. I see the other bedpost in the reflection at such an angle that I'd expect to see her on the left side of the foreground.

I was thinking about this as well, and have 3 possible ideas

• She's behind Delphi, and because of the view perspective, she is entirely hidden by Delphi
• We're not seeing a reflection, we're actually seeing Mirror-Wanda independently, suggesting that she actually is a figment of Fate as a few posters have suggested
• And lastly....Rob and Xin are human...they might have made a mistake, oops haha.

[NYbear]

Sorry, bit more of the off-topic cause its interesting

We also know there isn't anywhere near enough matter in the universe to make it flat. This is also measured very, very well. So the remaining energy is in space itself, and that generates the "space pushes" part. This is measured. There is some interaction that causes things to drift apart.

So you're saying, the default of spacetime is, well, hyperbolic, "wide-open", with (Sun-like) matter pulling on itself attempting to close it in, but only meeting it half-way at flatness being the first hypothesis. But then it turned out there's not enough of that to flatten it. Ok, but then how would a pushing force help?

The "pushing force" helps because of the following: "In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching some fixed rate. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases." Which is what I i think current evidence has supported: A flat universe with a +/- 0.5% margin of error as well as accelerating expansion. Hence the generally accepted theory atm of 70% dark energy and 30% dark+visible matter.

Anyhow back to erf

On the other hand, the text mentions that the buyer of this unit was getting "far more than they paid for" suggesting that someone who benefits from having Wanda may eventually be the one to pay that balance due. If this is the case, I would even wonder if all the units she kills and/or Decrypts actually increase her debt, or were included in it in the first place as part of her lifelong value.

One thought is that the "buyer" being Erfworld itself. "Erfworld" got a unit worth far more than normal, and Erf will have to repay that debt eventually. /tinfoil hat on: Maybe Wanda and Parson lead to the destruction of the tools...i could see that as certainly returning a large value back to zero. /tinfoil hat off.

[NYbear]

I have a hard time figuring out where non-reflected Wanda actually is. I see the other bedpost in the reflection at such an angle that I'd expect to see her on the left side of the foreground.

I was thinking about this as well, and have 3 possible ideas

• She's behind Delphi, and because of the view perspective, she is entirely hidden by Delphi
• We're not seeing a reflection, we're actually seeing Mirror-Wanda independently, suggesting that she actually is a figment of Fate as a few posters have suggested
• And lastly....Rob and Xin are human...they might have made a mistake, oops haha.

To me it looks like she is standing to the left of the foreground, at the top of the bed while Delphi is at the foot of the bed. The post we see in the mirror is the one at the top of the bed... though for that reflection to work better the mirror would need to be more in the center of the frame and angled a bit. That would however get the post at the foot of the bed in the way of the mirror blocking a full image of Mirror-Wanda, unless you changed the whole perspective of the drawing.

Regardless - love your work Xin

[BLANDCorporatio]

The "pushing force" helps because of the following: "In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching some fixed rate. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases." Which is what I i think current evidence has supported: A flat universe with a +/- 0.5% margin of error as well as accelerating expansion. Hence the generally accepted theory atm of 70% dark energy and 30% dark+visible matter.

That I get. What I don't get is why it's appropriate to describe that situation as "the universe is flat, but the Sun-like matter in it is not enough to flatten it, so there must be something else that also happens to act in an opposite fashion to the way Sun-like matter does".

[0beron]

Hm good point NYBear. However, we now know that TWO of the sides to have Wanda fell, an at least indirectly because of her....so I'm inclined to think the debt is paid by those around her. Just like Luckamancy "Erfworld doesn't look far for Numbers to steal"

[NYbear]

That I get. What I don't get is why it's appropriate to describe that situation as "the universe is flat, but the Sun-like matter in it is not enough to flatten it, so there must be something else that also happens to act in an opposite fashion to the way Sun-like matter does".

if the statement is "Sun-like matter is not enough to make it flat" - perhaps its in reference to dark (non-visible) matter in addition to Sun-like (visible) matter being required to pull space from a hyperbolic geometry to a flat geometry. If my understanding is correct, if there were far more matter (both visible and dark) - that would pull the universe into a spherical geometry. And the something else that acts opposite to all matter is what we call "dark energy". Anyway moving on.


Good point Oberon on the "Erfworld doesn't look far for Numbers to steal". - hmm maybe that's one way to solve the charlie issue - send her over to charlescomm and the side will eventually collapse :p - course who knows what havoc that pair might end up causing

[0beron]

dear LORD...they'd create remote Decryption!

Or they might somehow gain control of/re-arrange G-strings...
*cue plethora of puns about encrypted communications*

[barawn]

Which is what I i think current evidence has supported: A flat universe with a +/- 0.5% margin of error as well as accelerating expansion.

No, not quite. The observed accelerating expansion could've been due to screwed up measurement, or who knows, some other weird thing. You don't need to rely on the observed accelerating expansion, just the cosmic microwave background measurements.

1) The universe is flat. We know this because the huge microwave glow in the sky tells us it was flat when that was formed.
2) Only 30% of the energy required to make it flat comes from stuff with positive pressure (i.e., add more stuff, and you get more energy, or attraction). This is also from the CMB, *not* from the accelerating expansion.
3) Therefore the remaining 70% must be from something with negative pressure (i.e. add more stuff, and you get *less* energy, or repulsion)

The details of how you get that from the CMB are a little technical, but not *that* difficult to understand. It also turns out that the CMB results are consistent with the observed acceleration, but the CMB results are much more precise.

However, BLANDco is absolutely right. Saying that "space pushes," especially at this point, is semantic nonsense. We don't know what the hell is pushing. Something is. It's kindof cute to believe that 'nothingness' pushes, and when you've got 'stuff,' it pushes less, so you cling together... but it was also cute to believe there was a medium that light travelled in, or that heat was actually some fluid that flowed through stuff. Those things are complete bunk, and the idea that empty space pushes could also be complete bunk.

The problem, like I said before, are theorists who are pushing these crazy fantastical depictions of universe weirdness. Wormholes. Time travel. Curled-up dimensions. These are all ideas that make people say "ooh, neat!" But they're not physics. They're math. It doesn't become physics until it makes a prediction and isn't shown to be complete nonsense. And none of them have done that yet.

But sadly, popsci scientists get all the attention because they talk about crazy things and make people think we're close to building warp drive and teleporters, whereas the people who actually do the physics that advances science struggle to get funding.

[Mrtyuh]

All put behind us and not a problem. In a way my initial post countering you was a little dismissive, though I tried to keep it factual rather than combative (and apparently failed). So I'm also sorry for coming off as dismissive and rude, it wasn't my intent (in fact, generally speaking I like a lot of what you post).

Anyway, if I may be so bold as to say...."gravity" discussion closed! haha. Water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned, and since it is unrelated we can leave it as that.

Thank you. I should probably quite while I'm ahead, but....

This looks somewhat confusing to me. Do you mean an actual straight line, do you need to observe anything beside an exterior "unexplained" constant force to be able to decide you're either under gravity or under acceleration, would "inertial" observers assume there is no gravity acting on them or anything else? Are you referring to the fact that the weighlessness of space is actually free-fall?

The classical interpretation of General Relativity is that gravity changes the metric, which determines the shape of space(-time), which is a fancy way of saying that it determines what the shortest paths are. The idea has much older roots than Einstein, but that's another rant.

...you know the saying, "Keep silent and world thinks you're a fool. Speak and remove all doubt." You basically answered your question. I was refering to objects taking the shortest, I used the term straight, route, and what we perceive as gravity being the force acting on us that prevents us from doing the same, rendering the observer uninertial. Gravity curves space, the geometry of space becomes non-Euclidian, parallel lines meet. Objects move in the straighest possible path. It's like flying from New York to London, you flight "straight" but the curviture of the Earth will not allow it, so you actually travel a great circle route. I phrased it poorly...again. I'm probably still phrasing it poorly.

Now this is what confuses me. My understanding was, the more (Sun-like) matter, the more spacetime curves in on itself and the universe becomes "closed", and would undergo a crunch sometime in the futute. Last I checked, the history of the ideas was, initially a crunch was hypothesized, then it was discovered there isn't enough matter to allow this, then the mysterious repelling force was observed.

So you're saying, the default of spacetime is, well, hyperbolic, "wide-open", with (Sun-like) matter pulling on itself attempting to close it in, but only meeting it half-way at flatness being the first hypothesis. But then it turned out there's not enough of that to flatten it. Ok, but then how would a pushing force help?

That I get. What I don't get is why it's appropriate to describe that situation as "the universe is flat, but the Sun-like matter in it is not enough to flatten it, so there must be something else that also happens to act in an opposite fashion to the way Sun-like matter does".

I think I understand this question, so I'll give it a stab. e=mc^2. Mass and energy are equivilent. The amount mass and energy in the volume of the universe is its density. Like you said, if the universe is too dense, it becomes closed and collapses in on itself, possibly long before reaching its current age. If the universe is not dense enough, it becomes open, and possibly flying apart so quickly that galaxies never form. The universe is neither open or closed, it is flat and appears to have always been flat. In order to have a flat universe, you have to have near perfect density, Ω, and density must be near Ω throughout the entire history of the universe. The problem is that the universe is expanding. As volume increases, density drops, so you can't have a constant density. So you have dark energy. It is a property of vacuum, which increases with volume, and keeps density at Ω. Given the amount of calculated matter and dark matter in the universe, dark energy must make up 70% of the current universe to keep the density at Ω. We also know, that universal expansion did originally slow due to gravity, however, once it reached a certain volume, the expansion began to accelerate. So, this also seems to be a property of vacuum. The more vacuum between to objects, the more of a repulsive force there seems to be. So, dark energy is a term used to explain observed properties of vaccum, including the fact that vacuum seems to maintain Ω as it expands. So, basically, you need something that acts like normal energy and matter in satisfying the density requirement but that behaves the opposite of normal energy and matter in its gravitational interactions. I don't know if that answered you question. I may have misunderstood your question. I may have so poorly worded that explaination that its useless. Still, I hope it helps. I also hope it isn't so mutilated that it makes those with a better understanding than I heads hurt.

This is all very tricky stuff that could go either way.

On the one hand, you could be right that her debt is gradually paid off with every unit she kills. I suppose this could make sense from a Numbers perspective, as the loss of those units' values helps balance the total value of Erfworld.

On the other hand, the text mentions that the buyer of this unit was getting "far more than they paid for" suggesting that someone who benefits from having Wanda may eventually be the one to pay that balance due. If this is the case, I would even wonder if all the units she kills and/or Decrypts actually increase her debt, or were included in it in the first place as part of her lifelong value.

It's an interesting idea. It occured to me earlier that Wanda had probably done more harm than good to Gobwin Knob in the past. Perhaps that is why they are able to benefit so much from her now. At others sides, such as Goodminton and Faq, they got an upfront benefit, but it ended up destroying them. Wanda was originally a detriment to Haffaton, since she helped Goodminton, but that may be the reason she will be able to serve there for such a supposedly long time. Perhaps every side Wanda serves ends up having to pay for every credit with a debit. It isn't what the narrator described, but your comments made me think of it.

[barawn]

Like you said, if the universe is too dense, it becomes closed and collapses in on itself, possibly long before reaching its current age. If the universe is not dense enough, it becomes open, and possibly flying apart so quickly that galaxies never form. The universe is neither open or closed, it is flat and appears to have always been flat.

Nononono. The geometry of the universe has nothing to do with the behavior of galaxies (whether they accelerate or decelerate). That's only true if there's no dark energy, which of course is relatively recent so you may still find explanations that try to connect flat, hyperbolic, and elliptic geometry with the fate of the universe. But that connection was always really unsound anyway, and dark energy made it wrong.

The geometry of the universe is just geometry. That's it. Draw two perpendicular lines (A and B) and a line connecting them (C). If a^2 + b^2 > c^2, the space is elliptic (open). If a^2+b^2 < c^2, the space is hyperbolic (closed). If a^2 + b^2 = c^2, the space is flat. That's all.

Given the amount of calculated matter and dark matter in the universe, dark energy must make up 70% of the current universe to keep the density at Ω.

We can't calculate the amount of matter in the universe directly. We try, and the number is like, orders of magnitude too small. The percentage of dark energy, dark matter, and baryonic matter in the universe comes directly from CMB observations, and that's due to the fact that energy density with positive pressure and negative pressure influence higher modes of oscillation differently (to separate dark energy from dark matter+matter) and matter with different equations of state (how energy and pressure are related) also influence modes differently (to separate dark matter from matter).

Dark energy's existence isn't inferred, it's measured. We know the universe is flat, we know that stuff with positive pressure (more stuff = more energy = more attraction) makes up only 30% of that required density, so the rest has negative pressure.

[Mrtyuh]

Nononono. The geometry of the universe has nothing to do with the behavior of galaxies (whether they accelerate or decelerate). That's only true if there's no dark energy, which of course is relatively recent so you may still find explanations that try to connect flat, hyperbolic, and elliptic geometry with the fate of the universe. But that connection was always really unsound anyway, and dark energy made it wrong.

The geometry of the universe is just geometry. That's it. Draw two perpendicular lines (A and B) and a line connecting them (C). If a^2 + b^2 > c^2, the space is elliptic (open). If a^2+b^2 < c^2, the space is hyperbolic (closed). If a^2 + b^2 = c^2, the space is flat. That's all.

I get that. Flat, open and closed describe the geometry. It describes whether parallel lines will remain equidistant, diverge or converge, respectively. It describes whether the sum of the angles of a triangle equal 180 degrees, are greater than 180 degrees or less than 180 degrees, respectively. I was trying to say to things at once, it was compounded by my simplifying my answer. Ω is not actually the measurement of density. That is p. There is also a density required for the universe to be flat. That is p(subscript c). Ω is actually the ratio between the two. So if Ω=1 you get a flat universe. Also, p(subscript c) is not a contant. One of its components is the current rate of expansion of the universe. We know that changes, so p(subscript c) changes as well. So Ω=1 leads to a flat geometry. Ω>1 is a closed universe. Ω<1 is an open universe. That is how Ω relates to geometry. I was also trying to say that if was Ω>1 by a large margin at the beginning of the universe, it is theorized it would have collapsed in upon itself within a few centuries of the Big Bang. If Ω<1 by a large margin at the beginning of the universe, it is theorized it would have expanded so quickly matter would have been unable to coalesce into structures such as galaxies. That is not related to the geometry of the universe, and I did not mean to imply that it was.

If we've learned anything here, other than the fact that I probably don't grasp this as well as I thought I did and my understanding may be fundalmentally flawed, is that I absolutely suck at explaining things. So, I change my answer to find something that explains the Friedmann solution, it sounds like what you are asking. You may also want to find something that explains inflation theory.

We can't calculate the amount of matter in the universe directly. We try, and the number is like, orders of magnitude too small. The percentage of dark energy, dark matter, and baryonic matter in the universe comes directly from CMB observations, and that's due to the fact that energy density with positive pressure and negative pressure influence higher modes of oscillation differently (to separate dark energy from dark matter+matter) and matter with different equations of state (how energy and pressure are related) also influence modes differently (to separate dark matter from matter).

Dark energy's existence isn't inferred, it's measured. We know the universe is flat, we know that stuff with positive pressure (more stuff = more energy = more attraction) makes up only 30% of that required density, so the rest has negative pressure.

Okay, I was completely wrong there. I thought it was theorized and calculated. I did not realize they were based on actual measurements from WMAP. I thought the CMB just supported it. So, yeah, way off there. I also thought dark energy was variable, increasing with volume. It sounds like it is constant, so that would render my interpretation nonsense.

By the way, it occurs to me that I may owe barawn an apology as well. Not for being wrong, since that is more of a natural state for me. I know that I come here to not think about work. It occurs to me that you may be annoyed by my bringing your work here. So, if I've hindered your recreation, I apologize. I do appreciate your explainations; they are very stimulating, but my recreation should not come at the expense of your own.

So, to get back to the topic of this thread, I have a question and an observation. The question is: what is the design on Wanda's choker? At first I thought it was Goodminton's livery, but the more I look at it, the less sure I am. The second thing is that I am struck by the casual way in which Wanda appropriates a highly valuable item as an accessory for her outfit. It may reflect her thoughtlessness, which I mentioned earlier. As much as she rebels against her specialness under Fate, the way she acts indicates that she doesn't view anything beyond how it relates to her. She doesn't seem to consider that there might be consequences from this. I also wonder what consequences might actually arise from this action. Will Goodminton suffer some setback because of their reduced ability to communicate? If Wanda ends up in a different hex from Fritz, and they need to communicate some information to him, it is possible it may. Any thoughts?

[0beron]

I think the emblem on her choker is Goodminton, you can kind of distinguish a fairly triangular shape (the birdie), with a flat bit over it (halo).

As for her taking the message hat as part of her outfit, I don't think its as major. Thus far we've seen that she is making the most use of it anyway, and she is never away from the capital without the Chief Warlord. For that matter, since she popped, niether chief warlord has left the capital WITHOUT her either. So if she is ever afield but separated from Fritz, I think they have more of a problem than simply communication because in that case it's likely one of them is captured.

[drachefly]

And really, my personal experience isn't that its a coin flip. Neither are my decisions the product of external factors entirely. There is a part of me that consciously decides to take an action. Any model that doesn't contain that ability just seems to defy what I perceive as reality, so I am not going to go along with it unless there is some serious science showing that my brain is constructing an impressive illusion of choice.

You INCLUDE the machinery for making those choices. No one here has posited a model where you don't get to consciously choose to take the action. It's just that that conscious choice is implemented in matter. You know, the stuff what's real, you can hit yourself with it. Stuff is as real as it gets, and there's nothing wrong with being made of it. It's immanent.

Let me go into a little more detail on that.

When you think of matter, don't think of rocks or balls, and then stop. Sure, think of those, but also think of snowflake formation, the northern lights, computers, neurons, and the processing capabilities that implement thought. A choice is not illusory just because the factors that went into that choice were judged by a material being. It's inside you. Literally. And figuratively.

Stuff is real, so when it implements thought, the thoughts exist too. Cause what would that imply, for thoughts to be implemented but not exist? The material doing the thinking couldn't be real.

[the_tick_rules]

you know delphie is starting to annoy me. she's always all weepy and dramatic and nobody understands.

[Mrtyuh]

As for her taking the message hat as part of her outfit, I don't think its as major. Thus far we've seen that she is making the most use of it anyway, and she is never away from the capital without the Chief Warlord. For that matter, since she popped, niether chief warlord has left the capital WITHOUT her either. So if she is ever afield but separated from Fritz, I think they have more of a problem than simply communication because in that case it's likely one of them is captured.

Yeah, I'm reaching here. Still, that is the beauty of art. You can never be sure of the artist's intentions. Whether it is literature or music or paintings, the audience brings their own interpretations and meaning to it. Still, I'm mostly just speculating idly.

you know delphie is starting to annoy me. she's always all weepy and dramatic and nobody understands.

Are you being facetious? I'm not trying to challenge your opinion, but I can't determine the tone, so I'm not sure how to respond. This is the first time Delphie has been weepy. You could qualify her behavior as dramatic, at the very least since she's been demoted. If you're refering to her being haughty and cryptic, I can see that. As for "nobody understands," do you mean mean she's being all emo, which I could only see in this update, or do you mean it more as pretentiousness? Once again, I'm not trying to challenge your statement. I'm not saying I disagree with your statement. I'm just not sure whether you are being sarcastic or not, so I'd like clarificaltion so that I may understand your statement.

[barawn]

It occurs to me that you may be annoyed by my bringing your work here.

No, not really. The only thing that gets me a bit annoyed is when people think that the explanations that the popular theorists give have any grounding in reality. If you believed that dark energy was due to a trimancer link between Charlie, God, and Rob Balder, your theory would only be slightly less backed by evidence than virtually anything that's put out there. This isn't your fault, it's the fault of popular media, who seek out theorists who say weird things (and who have em time to say weird things and write weird books because they're not actually doing things), and for some reason think that's physics. It's not. It's math.

The last great popular physicist was Feynman. There hasn't been anyone like him since.

[BLANDCorporatio]

The only thing that gets me a bit annoyed is when people think that the explanations that the popular theorists give have any grounding in reality.

{snip}

The last great popular physicist was Feynman. There hasn't been anyone like him since.

Are you my lost twin or something?

I almost literally worship Feynaman, but I'd add the crazy nut Roger Penrose to the great popular ... uh, fine, mathematicians. Despite being wrong wrong wrong on Godel.

[Housellama]

It occurs to me that you may be annoyed by my bringing your work here.

No, not really. The only thing that gets me a bit annoyed is when people think that the explanations that the popular theorists give have any grounding in reality. If you believed that dark energy was due to a trimancer link between Charlie, God, and Rob Balder, your theory would only be slightly less backed by evidence than virtually anything that's put out there. This isn't your fault, it's the fault of popular media, who seek out theorists who say weird things (and who have em time to say weird things and write weird books because they're not actually doing things), and for some reason think that's physics. It's not. It's math.

The last great popular physicist was Feynman. There hasn't been anyone like him since.

The great ones don't just build on what's there. They find a new way to see everything. Feynman was one of those.

Re: the gravity discussion. Something that you (barawn) said really rings true with me is that nobody knows what the hell gravity really is. All sorts of people have all sorts of ideas, but no one really knows. The whole of science is built around the concept that Reality is the ultimate truth. Science is simply our current best guess at how it works. Do we know if it works exactly the way we think it does? Boop no. We just know that our model reflects what reality shows us. That doesn't make it right.

Quantum mechanics is just booping weird. It contains contradictions, things that go against all common sense and reason and rewrites the rules that we have used for centuries. The only reason that it wasn't chucked out years ago is because the damn thing works. It has made more successful predictions at modeling reality than any other theory so far. It sounds like science took a right turn into mysticism and left the real world far behind, but it reflects what is actually there better than anything else. We believe it because it has made predictions that were correct many times, and hasn't yet (in general) been proven wrong.

That's what science is. A guy sitting around on rocking gwiffin going "Why does the world work the way it does?" Is he right? Dunno. But so far he hasn't been wrong, and that's what's important.

[drachefly]

Quantum mechanics is just booping weird. It contains contradictions

No, it doesn't. It's a consistent system. If it weren't consistent, it wouldn't even be worth considering.

, things that go against all common sense and reason and rewrites the rules that we have used for centuries.

Well, sure. So did Newton.

It sounds like science took a right turn into mysticism and left the real world far behind,

Only if you listen to the mystics from the dawn of quantum mechanics, or those infected with their ludicrous ideas. It's not intrinsic to the subject.

That's what science is. A guy sitting around on rocking gwiffin going "Why does the world work the way it does?" Is he right? Dunno. But so far he hasn't been wrong, and that's what's important.

No. What's important is that he looks for just how and where he's wrong, even as he tries to find new explanations, rather than just piling on new explanations without rigorously checking them.