good to know i can still get S with my sub-optimal team (bro is broke) (i only have 37 maxed out and that was from ages ago) (babrhsdhsh WAOT I DID NOT CHANGE 6'S PSYCUBE)
Me reacting to Last and First Principles because holy shit
(though so far i'm only covering the first 6 chapters.)
(and I latch onto philosophical bullshit (something something the induction problem among other things HOW COINCIDENTAL) more so than the characters because monkey brain does what monkey brain does)
(and apparently i broke 1k words bro needs to shut up)
what in the string theory
I don't know much about physics but good lord I know we have 4 dimensions to account for time, and I know hypothetically we could have a shit-ton more other dimensions. But 11???
I had to look it up. And because I am also working, I only took a cursory glance at one article which hints at different versions of String Theory??? A version of it implies there may be 11, or even 26.
But for them to "return to the 11th dimension",,, holy smokes. Did they latch on to one theory? Is the theory actually a proven tangible thing?
whatever all I can truly say to this is Holy Shit
ENIGMA I KNOW YOU'RE A KID HERE BUT UHM HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THAT THE WORLD IS ACTUALLY A PILE OF INCOMPREHENSIBLE SPAGHETTI THAT WE ASSIGN MEANING TO BECAUSE WE, AS HUMANS, LIKE TO FIND PATTERNS IN THINGS-- *gets shot*
what in the linguistics.
I should have expected this. They did mention language barriers in an earlier chapter. And the whole thing with Enigma is Crosswords. Of course.
STILL ughthght I need to review more lore because what the fuck.
It's weird (and interesting) the way sound -> the particles that make up this reality. The world beyond a certain radius is constructed by sound, but what generates the sound? The speakers? Or some other thing? And is the whole thing random, or is there some discernable pattern which decides what sound makes what thing?
And it's cool that it mimics the way cells -> tissues or particles -> lattice of something using the phonemes -> morphemes pipeline. What is insane though is how the morphemes are... visible? Actual familiar symbols? Or is it like a representation because that's the way Adler understood it?
AND THEN, an environment that dissects words into phonemes? Holy shit sentience. Or maybe it just goes by vibrations. Or maybe we're comparing spoken words into sounds with multiple tones and so we are dividing them in the most sensible way possible.
"To use language is to quickly combine these pieces into specific sequences to create a meaningful utterance. Thus, one could view this entire environment as a "simulation of language use""
No complaints on this one. Sequences of sounds and we humans derive meaning to them. Sounds about right. Language is a social construct. Or not. How did language originate anyway?
("Simulation of language use" Deriving meaning from random sounds that turn into weird phenomena that is relatively meaningful to the witness. Yea. It is language use for the most part.)
Also, the tower of Babel. And ironically, the perfect language spans the 5 km radius centered at the tower. Wow.
How the fuck does the toy box physics work??? What in the bullshit
nerd.
bsbevwhabr I said this before but I might as well say it again.
I personally subscribe to the idea of the world being rational and that there must be a universal truth that answers everything. But that is still a belief I cannot actually defend outside of "something something the world is determined in part by cause and effect which is rational something something" but I don't think that's even a good argument lol.
To call the world a crossword puzzle with that kind of definition is a bit of a stretch I think?
"If you follow the clues, you'll arrive at an answer. The only answer. An established theory."
So I assume here he is implying that the "established theory" is the unifying theory.
Either way, in a good puzzle (not just crosswords, mind you), each clue will lead you to a logical conclusion, which usually is the only possible outcome. This makes the outcome the objective truth (and definitive proof that the puzzle is solvable but whatever). Then again, this also assumes that there exists an answer in the first place.
In the case of crossword puzzles, there would be the maker. A guy who has all the answers jotted down in a document somewhere and they use it to write the clues. This guarantees that the puzzle is solvable, and the players all know this too. Thus, the clues are guaranteed to lead to a certain fixed outcome, and the nature of crossword puzzles make it less likely that there are multiple solutions.
Also, the clues are finite.
The world, however, is an unknown phenomena. We don't know if there exists an omniscient creator who has all the answers. The clues in a puzzle are tailored to guide you towards the answer, but the clues of the physical world (empirical data) are less intentional.
Players interpret a crossword puzzle's clues differently. And with multiple answers to choose from for each clue, only one combination works to complete the puzzle.
You can do the same in theory, come up with interpretations to various data points and use it to get a combination that doesn't contradict each other, but how many of these clues do you have to solve before you get the final answer?
And this also assumes you can arrive at an answer that's comprehensible to the human (or arcanist) mind.
The answer may as well not exist either, and that everything is simply random happenstance humans gave meaning in order to make sense of the world.
Kind of like language, now that I think about it.
Oh and on the code part, I think that basically cancels out the whole "maker" problem. Because codes don't usually need an author?? Maybe?? You can technically have a computer generate gibberish randomly with no one knowing the absolute correct answer and you get code. Iykwim.
Still, you need rules. And how do you get rules? Inference and some kind of regularity. And then we get the problem of induction.
If regularity implies rule, and we need rules to imply structure, then we first need to know if a phenomena is considered regular and not mere coincidence. And how does one define regularity? With respect to time? Or perhaps by some other metric? And how much deviation in this "regularity" can be tolerated until we can definitively conclude a rule?
Anyway, I'll shut up on this now.
Bevacwegrh time to look into the Theory of Everything because I am pretty fucking sure this is an actual perspective in physics.
Sarcasm duly noted.
"The pieces' cognitive processes have all unified under the same model."
sooooooo same brain? Like exact same blueprint of mind? Nevermind. It's a hivemind.
"Unanimous agreement, unanimous objection—can this even be considered communication?"
Yes, in a sense that it still transfers information among two or more parties. Communication doesn't necessarily require disagreement or dissent, after all.
Though I think I get what he's saying.
What he's alluding to here is moreso the pieces either lacking the balls to disagree outwardly, or the inability to disagree in general. Which isn't really a communication problem in a "see? we talk to each other" way and more of an internal processing thing. When everyone has the same opinion, does anyone truly process the issue at all?
wow. the depression is so real. literally his whole monologue I'm like "yep. so real."
marcus is a bean bshshdha i love her she's adorable.
gen didn't expect to come out of the event story enjoying these two lol
(am speedrunning the event story sort of.)
like character design aside, i just like the fact that these two are manipulators with different motivations.
both are observant to a T, which kind of allows them to manipulate outcomes so well. "Know your target inside and out before taking their life into your hands" after all.
Honestly what fascinates me first about Lorentz is how outright she is about it. Definitely the Sherlock (BBC) archetype of being a genius ten steps ahead while being a nuisance about it. But it's not just in detective work she's like this, but also everything else.
I am half sure she's doing it for the love of the game, to intellectually challenge her and to entertain her. Even if it means manipulating another to shoot a gun. She doesn't dress it up as noble, as far as I know.
Idk Añil's assessment of her liking to play God isn't wrong lol. The end might be "controlling life and death" but technically she can just control outcomes too and that's also playing God.
ALSO her whole theme is the Chaos Theory. The Butterfly Effect. It's a symbol of unpredictability, of how the smallest of changes could result in unpredictable massive changes. Her whole thing is predicting outcomes, to know a person inside and out before deciding what to do.
Her whole infallibility assumes a target is predictable and can be reduced to distinguishable patterns. But life isn't that predictable, surely. Even the smallest of changes could result in unprecedented consequences, such as her schema breaking.
Anyway, AÑIL!!!! heajgesh I was already half won over by character design and how he seems to be constantly waiting for people to appear. Like he knows people will arrive at some location at a certain time. While I initially dismissed him as just being casually observant, the twist of him being the actual mastermind is just, good???
Like I think it's probably a predictable twist villain story beat but idk man I don't read mystery all often and I was just sitting here going insane.
My liking for this man is less poignant than Lorentz lol. For Lorentz, other than being Sherlock 2.0, her whole name being a math reference kind of made me look for potential motifs for her as a character lmao.
Añil though? Dude is soft spoken and high key observant and nonchalant in the face of threats. Very disarming and if not for the whole confrontation I would peg him as nobody special.
His machinations are not driven by curiosity the way Lorentz's is. Half sure the whole thing is just motivated by grief and some sunk-cost fallacy. To see things through because you put too much work into it to let go. Then the appearance of Lorentz investigating puts a hole in that plan and he just takes it, letting it unravel. Because an outside force unravelling things might be much more satisfactory than simply giving up.
Or something like that.
Look at some point you gotta wonder if Lorentz is also a piece of the board Añil accounts for. Or perhaps he's not really the chess-playing mastermind and rather a guy who simply follows the string of cause and effect one step at a time. Idk.
Haven't read his overture yet, but I do want to see his relationship with Muriel in deeper detail because the stories don't capture that as much and if he's that dear to him, why has he not stopped the plan at its early stages before Muriel loses his memories avejagshsoawk
shoving them into blorbo list because i think i am slowly building a decent type in my mind. damn.
