In my Pearl Harbor world, I broke both wrists, and got Arthritis in them. I just noticed it a few days ago, but my wrists have been feeling kind of stiff ever since then. I'm not making this up. Anyone else ever get what is happening to their character happening to them at the same time? Perhaps I am psionic after all. Psychosomatic I believe is the term. You start feeling the pains of a fictional character. Perhaps in a story you are reading.
Laugh if you want...........
(34 posts) (6 voices)-
My palms always hurt when I get to the end of the soundtrack for Jesus Christ Superstar, but I don't know if that's quite the same thing.
Wed Oct 10 2007 2:23 am # -
Yeah, I've heard of stigmata, but I think this has more to do with the repeated pounding of the hammer in the background and the emotional impact of the music than any direct action of the Holy Spirit. As a child I was often told I had an overactive imagination.
I haven't seen many movies.
Wed Oct 10 2007 3:40 am # -
Graham
MemberAs a child, it's called an overactive imagination, but as an adult it's called creativity.
I really can't empathize with you John, I'm not really the emotional in-depth kind of guy.
There is a specific name for a physiological feeling with no actual physical condition, therefore caused by the mind, but my psychology class was a while ago and I don't remember it.
Although what I do remember is the first chapter and the belief bias, which was that a person will search for instances that reinforce their idea and will ignore situations that don't. Which is was Eric said, only my way was polite and scientific. It's probably just achy-joint pain, and you only notice it because it happens to relate to Multiverser.
Correlation does not mean causation.
Wed Oct 10 2007 5:56 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberYeah, I've heard of what you're talking about Graham. That you hear the same song over and over, but cannont understand the lyrics. Then someone tells you what it says, and you start to hear that lyric, whether it is real or not. I just thought it was kind of strange though, that's all. It's probably what you're saying.
Scott, I know how music can get you pumped up and make you believe things. Whenever I play the Back To The Future soundtrack in the car, I become an ace driver. Whether I am an ace driver is probably a matter for debate, though.
Wed Oct 10 2007 6:02 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberLike how you threatened me when we were playing? Not once, but several times? Why should anyone trust a referee that threatens them? As far as I am concerned, every single roll you made after that threat was suspect. Why should I trust you to roll fairly if you're threatening me? Not to mention that fact that your, uh excuse me YOU'RE not capable of passing a 3rd grade English test, why should I think you could pass a 3rd grade math test? "Let's see, John just rolled a 1, a 4 and a 3, I think that adds up to 28, because my name is Adam Keller" Like I said, make petty remarks, I'll bury you.
Wed Oct 10 2007 10:04 am # -
David is right, this is not appropriate to this forum.
Adam, I think you instigated it; you should have realized John would take that comment wrong.
John, chill--it was obviously a joke, that you missed because you've already got a problem with Adam.
I would ask both of you to be more cautious in what you say about or to each other, and more forgiving of what each other says.
--M. J. Young
Wed Oct 10 2007 9:17 pm # -
JohnA1nut
MemberI've seen it proven on paper that a man cannot outrun a tortoise. Let's say that the man can run 10 MPH, and the tortoise can run 1 MPH. That means that the man will run 10 yards for every 1 yard the tortoise runs. Give the tortoise a 100 yard head start. So, the man runs 100 yards, the tortoise runs 10 yards. The tortoise is now 10 yards, or 1/10th the starting distance. The man runs 10 yards, the tortoise runs 1 yard, or 1/10th the distance. The man runs 1 yard, the tortoise runs 1/10th of a yard. The man runs that, the tortoise runs 1/10th of that, and so on and so forth, into infinity. The tortoise would always be 1/10th the distance ahead. Of course, that's on paper, try it in real life.
Fri Oct 12 2007 12:52 am # -
This is misdirection.
Let's say the man is moving at 1 yard per second, with the tortoise at 0.1 yards per second. After one hundred seconds, the man will have traveled 100 yards and reached the tortoise's starting point, and the tortoise will be at the 10-yard line. Ten seconds later, the man will be at the 10-yard line and the tortoise will be one yard in front of it. One second later (second # 111), the man will be at the 11 and the tortoise will be at the 11-and-one-tenth. We can see the pattern here, right? Using this pattern, we can predict at which second the tortoise and the man will be even: second number 111.111( . . . repeating, the ones extend infinitely), that is, second 1000/9. After one thousand ninths of a second, both the man and the tortoise will be exactly one ninth of the way to the 100 yard line (that is, 11 and 1/9th yards toward it, 11.1repeating yards), and from that point on it will be exactly as if they had started together: the tortoise will never catch up with the man.
This is the sort of thing you do with limits in calculus, but the simpler applications of limits can be solved just as easily with pattern recognition, like with this one.
Fri Oct 12 2007 1:35 am # -
It occurs to me that I've proven that the man will pass the tortoise, but I haven't pointed out where the misdirection comes into play. If the man is moving at 1yd/sec, he'll pass the tortoise on second 111+1/9. But, the person showing you the trick only lets you look at the racers at second 100, second 110, second 111, second 111.1, and so on - he shows you snapshots of the race, and every snapshot is later than the one before, but it's only later by one-tenth of the time as the previous snapshot. He never shows you a shapshot from after the man passes the tortoise, only snapshots from before. That's the trick. By dividing and redividing the time increments by which you advance, he ensures that you never get the point where the man and tortoise meet.
Like with most tricks, it's what you're not looking at that makes it work.
Fri Oct 12 2007 1:45 am # -
Graham
MemberMy favorite was always that .9999...=1.
This baffled me for the longest time until I realized the simple definition of two different real numbers a and b was that there was some number x that was in between a and b, such that a < x < b or that b < x < a. There is no number between .9999...and 1, therefore they are the same number. Also, on a number line, as .9999... expands for infinity, it approaches the point on which 1 lies, making them the same number.
Also, 2+2 can equal 5, depending on the definition of the numbers.
And I believe that Scott proved that it can't be proved on paper; anything that does prove so has a fundamental error.
Fri Oct 12 2007 1:53 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberWell, again, it's the value of the numbers, and theoretical physics, and a lot of mumbo jumbo too. Speaking of the value of numbers, when does 1+1+9=3? 1 man + 1 woman + 9 months = 3 people, one of them a baby. I like the way Kevin Costner put it in JFK "Theoretical Physics can prove than an elephant can hang upside-down from a cliff, with its tail tied to a daisy, but use your eyes." Something like that anyway.
Fri Oct 12 2007 2:10 am # -
Scott, I believe that the original problem was posed by the Greek mathmatician/philosopher Xeno (and restated in a similar form by Lewis Carroll). It is actually a theoretical problem in infinities.
Before a man can walk from point 1 to point 2, he must walk from 1 to 1.5; before he can do that, he must walk from 1 to 1.25; before he can do that he must walk from 1 to 1.125; before he can do that, he must walk from 1 to 1.0625. You can divide the distance in half an infinite number of times, and of course that means that to move from 1 to 2 you must cross an infinite number of shorter distances.
With the two-runner version, the problem is that the case can always be made thus: before the pursuer can reach the leader, he must reach the point at which the leader was when he started; but when he gets there, the leader has already moved. Thus if you are at 1 and I am at 2, and you move ten times as fast I as do, before you can catch me you must run from 1 to 2; but by the time you reach 2 I will be at 2.1; and by the time you reach 2.1 I will be at 2.11; and by the time you reach 2.11 I will be at 2.111; and by the time you reach 2.111 I will be at 2.1111. It thus appears, mathematically, that you can never catch me, because I will always be gone before you arrive.
The real world problem, of course, is that the fractional distance between us grows less and less. If the distance from 1 to 2 is a kilometer, then the distance between 2.111 and 2.1111 is a decimeter, and at that point you've probably caught me.
Even so, there is this theoretical problem in it. Each additional leg of the journey takes one tenth the time of the previous leg. If it takes you a thousand seconds to travel from 1 to 2, then it takes only a hundred seconds to reach 2.1, ten seconds to reach 2.11, one second to reach 2.111, one tenth of a second to reach 2.1111, a hundredth of a second to reach 2.11111--but since we can split the second at least into picoseconds, can you ever really catch me?
Doing it on a spreadsheet:
Cell A1=0 Cell B1=1
Cell A2=B1 Cell B2=B1+((A2-A1)/10)
Cell A3=B2 Cell B3=B2+((A3-A2)/10)
RepeatI notice that my computer starts coming up with wrong answers at A4 (I have a C column which gives me B-A so I can more easily track the point at which it levels out, and it is showing me that 1.111000000000000000000000000000 minus 1.110000000000000000000000000000 equals 0.001000000000000110000000000000, obviously an error). It isn't until A16 that the computation, displayed to thirty places but only showing values to the fifteenth, comes to 0 difference. That suggests that the display value and the computational value are not in agreement. However, the point is still visible: as long as the increase in B is given as a fraction or percentage of the increase in A, A cannot ever actually equal B--it just comes close enough that we can no longer distinguish the difference.
Sorry, Graham, I can figure out how to make 1+3+4=13, 12, 11, or 10, but not 28. I am not persuaded that it can be done with calculus or trigonometry, either, and I've ruled out clock arithmetic also.
--M. J. Young
Fri Oct 12 2007 3:22 am # -
At all temporal points in which I haven't caught you yet, you are gone before I arrive. At all temporal points in which I have already caught you, I am gone before you arrive. I fail to see how that keeps me from catching you, even in theory.
Fri Oct 12 2007 3:36 am # -
And yes, you can divide the seconds as much as you want, but in doing so in ever-decreasing increments, you are implicitly acknowledging the point in time at which both runners will have come exactly the same distance. The simple fact that there are an infinity of points along the line between yard one and yard two does not mean that all the points beyond yard two do not exist. It's not a paradox or a theoretical problem, it's a trick of framing.
Fri Oct 12 2007 3:45 am # -
John - I think I understand the problem; I just reject that it is, in fact, a problem. You don't spend an eternity catching the tortoise, you spend 1000/9 seconds (if you use the arbitrary numbers I did). There are infinite temporal points between your start time and your catching the tortoise; however, the point at which you do catch him still exists, as does an infinity of temporal points thereafter.
The exercise is fun in a recursive sort of way, but in the end you have to acknowledge that not only is it nonsense to claim that you'll never catch the tortoise, it's nonsense to claim that math claims you'll never catch the tortoise. Mathematics supports nothing of the kind.
Fri Oct 12 2007 3:51 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberWell, as you said, it is fun to think about. I guess just take it for that. The thing with theoretical physics is that there are no right or wrong answers. It's all theoretical, and theoretical cannot be proven one way or the other. It's the ultimate "What If" if you will.
Fri Oct 12 2007 3:59 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberHere's a theoretical physics question for you, particularly for Scott.
"What is the square root of a flexnard?"
"The square root of a flexnard is a cup full of boogers."
Carl Wheezer.As you can see, a theoretical physics question doesn't need a right or wrong answer, and really, doesn't need to make sense. In my opinion, they're more for entertainment.
BTW, bonus points to anyone who knows who Carl Wheezer is.
Fri Oct 12 2007 4:56 am # -
FIVE TONNES OF FLAX
Fri Oct 12 2007 5:02 am # -
Ah? I'm unfamiliar with both Carl Wheezer and his supposed flexnards. I was quoting Malaclypse the Younger:
A student once asked Malaclypse the Younger: Master, what is the true meaning of Discordianism?
He said:
A Zen student once asked his master, what is the true meaning of Buddhism? The master replied, "Three pounds of flax."
The student asked: So is that the answer to my question?
Malaclypse scoffed: Of course not! That was just illustrative. The answer to your question is FIVE TONS OF FLAX!
Fri Oct 12 2007 5:46 am # -
JohnA1nut
MemberAh, that makes more sense. When I said "FLEXnard" and you wrote "FLAX" I assumed that you misread it as "FLAXnard" I thought perhaps a "nard" was a unit for measuring amounts of flax.
Carl Wheezer is a fictional character, from the Nickelodeon cartoon "Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius." Carl is not very bright, as opposed to Jimmy having an IQ of 210. Anyway, in one episode, Carl Wheezer was dreaming that he was Jimmy, and so he was the smartest kid in the world. He said all kinds of things that made no sense, but in the dream, they were the most intelligent sentences ever spoken. (Much the same way most of what Jimmy says makes no sense to Carl) In the dream, a math professor was trying to figure out "The square root of a flexnard" and Carl looked at it, and said "The square root of a flexnard is a cup full of boogers." I just used it as an illustration of a theoretical problem, which neither makes sense, or needs to, simply because it is theoretical. Like I said, to me, theoretical physics is more for entertainment than anything else.
Fri Oct 12 2007 6:51 am # -
Theoretical physics is not actually nonsense--it has to be consistent with what is known.
I believe that it was theoretical physics that completely destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It was also theoretical physics that built the CD drive on your computer.
--M. J. Young
Sat Oct 13 2007 5:05 am #
Reply
You must log in to post.