Talk:Below - Revision history

Zeracles: reply

2008-01-02T09:42:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:42, 2 January 2008
Line 189:		Line 189:

	(re third and fourth paragraph) Judging from my "Orz about dimensions" edit at Dimension, I think I meant the worst option of all — replacing "possibly" and "may be" with quotes, and ''not'' listing theories. After looking at the time of that edit, I'm surprised that it wasn't late in the day, so that I have "I was tired" as an excuse. But "I was bored" might still work. Don't mind what I said about theories. Dimension article corrected. [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 12:35, 31 December 2007 (CET)		(re third and fourth paragraph) Judging from my "Orz about dimensions" edit at Dimension, I think I meant the worst option of all — replacing "possibly" and "may be" with quotes, and ''not'' listing theories. After looking at the time of that edit, I'm surprised that it wasn't late in the day, so that I have "I was tired" as an excuse. But "I was bored" might still work. Don't mind what I said about theories. Dimension article corrected. [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 12:35, 31 December 2007 (CET)
			----
			I thought beauty could always be substituted for parsimony anyway, not just in the game world. I also doubt the Twin Gods imagined many worlds, if they imagined anything at all, and if they imagined nothing, that's fine too, their answer still needs to be brilliant all the same.

			Theories would highlight the more likely significant ones without real bias. Catgories sounds like the best way of ordering entries in such a table, but I think I'd prefer your third option. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 10:42, 2 January 2008 (CET)

Valaggar: reply

2007-12-31T11:35:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:35, 31 December 2007
Line 179:		Line 179:

	I thought I was already your great hero guy, since you [http://starcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com/forum/index.php?topic=1441.msg21063#msg21063 canonised me] ;) but it sounds good . . . I would have been accepting sainthood on false pretences by not adopting your nomenclature, clearly. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 12:01, 31 December 2007 (CET)		I thought I was already your great hero guy, since you [http://starcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com/forum/index.php?topic=1441.msg21063#msg21063 canonised me] ;) but it sounds good . . . I would have been accepting sainthood on false pretences by not adopting your nomenclature, clearly. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 12:01, 31 December 2007 (CET)

			----

			(re first paragraph) The "appeal to beauty" was more of a fanciful way to agree to disagree (as if you haven't noticed)... I have a feeling that this isn't what the Twin Gods have imagined, but then, who knows how far away ''my'' interpretation is from Theirs...

			(re second paragraph) It was in reply to "Some of these definitions are more significant than others. Like below. A list of definitions is needed, but I also think that we should highlight the more significant ones somehow, possibly with a different section on that page.". The user-sortable table would allow us to make another column, a "category" one. ("1. Dimensions/IDF"; "2. Interjections" etc.) Then, if the user wants to, he/she/it can choose whether to have definitions sorted after their category or alphabetically. There's a problem with this take, of course — [http://uqm.stack.nl/wiki/script/index.php?title=Orz_communications&oldid=19326 a table] would make it ugly and rather hard to read. And there's something which, I hope, is a solution to this problem. Increasing the height of the cells. And I'd also make another column to the right, which lists all the places where the best-fit appears (not the entire reply, just the significant part).

			Alternatively, we could, of course, just make a second section with the definitions broken into sections. A third option would be to just list all the best-fits (bolding those who are defined on the page) in alphabetical order at first, and then write the list of definitions (sectionized by category).

			(re third and fourth paragraph) Judging from my "Orz about dimensions" edit at Dimension, I think I meant the worst option of all — replacing "possibly" and "may be" with quotes, and ''not'' listing theories. After looking at the time of that edit, I'm surprised that it wasn't late in the day, so that I have "I was tired" as an excuse. But "I was bored" might still work. Don't mind what I said about theories. Dimension article corrected. [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 12:35, 31 December 2007 (CET)

Zeracles: reply

2007-12-31T11:01:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:01, 31 December 2007
Line 169:		Line 169:

	(re happy new year unless I'm Chinese) So "Fong Kit-ming" in the title of your "page at the school of physics" refers to you!? I'd never have guessed. Half of me is eager to find out the story, the other half is already dead because of this curiosity. And, by the way, YAY! My nomenclature for referring to the Twin Gods has been adopted by your page! And there's a link to that page I created, Star Control sequel, too! You're my hero! [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 14:02, 30 December 2007 (CET)		(re happy new year unless I'm Chinese) So "Fong Kit-ming" in the title of your "page at the school of physics" refers to you!? I'd never have guessed. Half of me is eager to find out the story, the other half is already dead because of this curiosity. And, by the way, YAY! My nomenclature for referring to the Twin Gods has been adopted by your page! And there's a link to that page I created, Star Control sequel, too! You're my hero! [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 14:02, 30 December 2007 (CET)
			----
			(re first paragraph) No, I don't like many worlds. I have a different preference (which I haven't even mentioned here), actually, but I'm not writing what I like here, I am constraining what is possible, as I was saying. On the other side of this, I hope you're not arguing against many worlds just because you don't like it (or me haha).

			Maybe it's just that I've never seen one before, but how would the user-sortable table work? I mean what would you use to rank the entries?

			And yes, we can always take the easy way out and do trivially more than quote from the game, but I thought we were here to do a bit more than that. I was trying to make the point that listing possible theories introduces no bias. In fact, whenever the Orz communications page has something like ``possibly" or ``may be", it's giving you a theory. Listing the general classes of theory admitted by the information given is objective. In fact, I was trying to say that it might be more economical to list the theories, since this is what words like ``possibly" or ``may be" do anyway.

			But if I understand you, you're now saying we should get rid of the might-bes and possibilities anyway? I would actually favour this if the theories find a home somewhere, but not if they don't, because I don't think it would make sense to not at least mention basic possibilities like QuasiSpace's possible membership of outside anywhere in this wiki. We are fans after all.

			I thought I was already your great hero guy, since you [http://starcontrol.classicgaming.gamespy.com/forum/index.php?topic=1441.msg21063#msg21063 canonised me] ;) but it sounds good . . . I would have been accepting sainthood on false pretences by not adopting your nomenclature, clearly. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 12:01, 31 December 2007 (CET)

Valaggar: reply

2007-12-30T13:02:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:02, 30 December 2007
Line 161:		Line 161:

	(re happy new year unless I'm Chinese) Half of me will defer your well-wish for a few weeks yet! --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 09:48, 30 December 2007 (CET)		(re happy new year unless I'm Chinese) Half of me will defer your well-wish for a few weeks yet! --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 09:48, 30 December 2007 (CET)

			----

			(re first paragraph) "Well, it's all possible". And since it's about a game universe, one can even replace parsimony with "the preferred hypothesis is the one that is most interesting". Which, in negative form, could be worded as "boring and therefore wrong". That is, you like the many-worlds interpretation, so it's true for you unless the Twin Gods say it's otherwise, and I prefer the non-many-worlds interpretation, so that's what is true for me unless the Twin Gods say it's otherwise.

			(re significance of below) '''Re first paragraph''': I ''think'' we could use a user-sortable table to solve this, like [[wikipedia:Table of United States Combined Statistical Areas\|here]]. '''Re second paragraph''': I guess [[Dimension]] would be a suitable place to say that, just after saying that "the Arilou intimate [...] trivialized metaphor [...] "space" or "time"." '''Re third paragraph''': Maybe we shouldn't bias the reader's interpretation of the raw data, you know. Maybe, since IDF-related words are such a contentious matter, we should stick to something to the likes of just listing exactly what the Orz say about the word. For instance, maybe we should remove the "Likely contains QuasiSpace." from the definition of outside, and instead of defining above as "where the Arilou come from. This may refer to QuasiSpace (in terms of its relative reality phase with respect to TrueSpace/HyperSpace), a particular part of QuasiSpace (if outside refers specifically to QuasiSpace), or an obscure characteristic of the Arilou in contrast to the Orz (who are from below).", we could just say that "Although both the Orz and the Arilou are from outside, the latter are "from above"."

			(re happy new year unless I'm Chinese) So "Fong Kit-ming" in the title of your "page at the school of physics" refers to you!? I'd never have guessed. Half of me is eager to find out the story, the other half is already dead because of this curiosity. And, by the way, YAY! My nomenclature for referring to the Twin Gods has been adopted by your page! And there's a link to that page I created, Star Control sequel, too! You're my hero! [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 14:02, 30 December 2007 (CET)

Zeracles: spacetime

2007-12-30T08:48:02Z

*spacetime*

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:48, 30 December 2007
Line 145:		Line 145:

	And Happy New Year, of course. Unless there are some Chinese around here (I mean, except the spammers). [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 14:01, 29 December 2007 (CET)		And Happy New Year, of course. Unless there are some Chinese around here (I mean, except the spammers). [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 14:01, 29 December 2007 (CET)
			----
			(re first paragraph) I think I understand you now. Except that the more I think about space branching, the better many worlds seems, and actually, from a physical perspective, that may be exactly what many worlds implies anyway, if one takes time to be the ``proper time" of general relativity . . . which I think is correct, at least I'm sure it is a valid way of taking it (MWI is nothing more than an interpretation of probability). Oh, but I can detail this later. What I'm trying to say is that if we have branching of both space and time, it's just branching of spacetime - taken this way, parsimony doesn't work. Although, if this was the case, the Orz should have said ``spacetime is many".

			And again in conversation we come across parsimony - I'm actually tempted to wonder if the spiritual beliefs thread on the SCDB might have gone well if it had been carried on as on this talk page (read: if we were the only two posters).

			(re significance of below) Well, the necessity of more pages if we keep this one is the strongest argument against below . . . I take this point, but I have a problem with just putting it all in Orz communications. It reads like a disjoint list of definitions (because it is I suppose). Some of these definitions are more significant than others. Like below. A list of definitions is needed, but I also think that we should highlight the more significant ones somehow, possibly with a different section on that page.

			Another problem I have with putting it all in the Orz communications page is that these things are then made specific to the Orz. It involves other races to various extents. If we put it all in an article somewhere, I haven't thought about it but maybe one of the IDF pages would be a better place.

			A more general problem I have with just shoving this into a list of definitions without a list of theories (or at least some kind of narrattive) is that definitions depend on the theories (so if we are going to admit definitions, we wouldn't really be speculating by presenting the theories on which they depend). Rather than saying ``XXX may mean this, that or anything in between" for all of them, a list of self-consistent theories could, I think, present the information in a more tractable way. Suppose I discuss the beginning of the universe. I could present all the possibilities for all the things anyone might wonder about the universe, or I could present just a handful of self-consistent theories. Both the former and the latter have their uses, that's all I'm saying.

			(re categories) Heh, if you don't support your own idea, what chance does it have?

			I love that user page of yours, maybe I'll put my silly theory up in similar kind.

			(re happy new year unless I'm Chinese) Half of me will defer your well-wish for a few weeks yet! --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 09:48, 30 December 2007 (CET)

Valaggar: addition (detailed anti-Pretty Space part)

2007-12-29T13:06:35Z

addition (detailed anti-*Pretty Space* part)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:06, 29 December 2007
Line 140:		Line 140:
	(re significance of below) If we say that below is significant because it's part of an important mystery, we'll also have to lend the same importance to above, outside, inside, in between, space, time and possibly even XXX space and YYY time. Since it'd be a little too much to have an article for each of these (there's not even much to say about them), I think we can just keep them in a single article. And we already have an article suited for that — Orz communications. We can just keep these words as entries there.		(re significance of below) If we say that below is significant because it's part of an important mystery, we'll also have to lend the same importance to above, outside, inside, in between, space, time and possibly even XXX space and YYY time. Since it'd be a little too much to have an article for each of these (there's not even much to say about them), I think we can just keep them in a single article. And we already have an article suited for that — Orz communications. We can just keep these words as entries there.

	And... uh... actually the same goes for Pretty Space. I'd be in favor of replacing the Pretty Space article with a redirect to Orz communications too, actually.		And... uh... actually the same goes for Pretty Space. I'd be in favor of replacing the Pretty Space article with a redirect to Orz communications too, actually. We don't have much (if any) solid information about Pretty Space (see the number of unknowns in the article), and we don't even know if it's a dimension (which means that the argument "let's keep Pretty Space so as to make Category:Dimensions an exhaustive list of all dimensions we know" has no power).

	And no, I guess we should keep Category:Dimensions as Category:Dimensions (IDF is too convoluted a name, and it's, after all, just a phenomenon used for interdimensional travel — not really a name for a category to which the article Dimensions would belong). And we can still add the IDF article to it, after all.		And no, I guess we should keep Category:Dimensions as Category:Dimensions (IDF is too convoluted a name, and it's, after all, just a phenomenon used for interdimensional travel — not really a name for a category to which the article Dimensions would belong). And we can still add the IDF article to it, after all.

	And Happy New Year, of course. Unless there are some Chinese around here (I mean, except the spammers). [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 14:01, 29 December 2007 (CET)		And Happy New Year, of course. Unless there are some Chinese around here (I mean, except the spammers). [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 14:01, 29 December 2007 (CET)

Valaggar: reply

2007-12-29T13:01:58Z

@@ Line 119: / Line 119: @@
 Also, to Fyzixfighter, Svdb, PsiPhi and so on:<br>
 So what do we do with the theory/ies on this talk page? I understand that you probably oppose including them in the articles, or in a speculation page, but the point is that certain parts on Orz communications and other pages are rendered obsolete by this theory. Those obsolete parts should then probably be revised, as it now can be seen that they're not so cast in stone. I'm talking about the *outside*/*above*/*below* definitions, about classifying *Pretty Space* as a dimension, and, of course, about deleting/moving this article. Also, maybe it'd be a good idea to rename Category:Dimensions to Category:Inter-Dimensional Fatigue (reason: this way *Pretty Space* can be kept in that category, and the [[IDF]] article can be added to the category too). [[User:Valaggar|Valaggar]] 11:25, 28 December 2007 (CET)
 ----
 If I understand you (which I might not), what you say about a ``strong parallel between *XXX time* and *YYY space*" is somewhat circular, that is, you assume that when the Orz say *slow time*, they used the word ``time". They may not have, they may have (for example) said just one Orzese word (like ``orgetgetch" (yes, I read that from one of the spammers)) which is best fit by two of our words, one of which just happens to be time.
@@ Line 131: / Line 133: @@
 We do need some input, but there's no hurry :) Happy new year. --[[User:Zeracles|Zeracles]] 01:12, 29 December 2007 (CET)

Zeracles: happy new year

2007-12-29T00:12:06Z

happy new year

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:12, 29 December 2007
Line 119:		Line 119:
	Also, to Fyzixfighter, Svdb, PsiPhi and so on:<br>		Also, to Fyzixfighter, Svdb, PsiPhi and so on:<br>
	So what do we do with the theory/ies on this talk page? I understand that you probably oppose including them in the articles, or in a speculation page, but the point is that certain parts on Orz communications and other pages are rendered obsolete by this theory. Those obsolete parts should then probably be revised, as it now can be seen that they're not so cast in stone. I'm talking about the outside/above/below definitions, about classifying Pretty Space as a dimension, and, of course, about deleting/moving this article. Also, maybe it'd be a good idea to rename Category:Dimensions to Category:Inter-Dimensional Fatigue (reason: this way Pretty Space can be kept in that category, and the [[IDF]] article can be added to the category too). [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 11:25, 28 December 2007 (CET)		So what do we do with the theory/ies on this talk page? I understand that you probably oppose including them in the articles, or in a speculation page, but the point is that certain parts on Orz communications and other pages are rendered obsolete by this theory. Those obsolete parts should then probably be revised, as it now can be seen that they're not so cast in stone. I'm talking about the outside/above/below definitions, about classifying Pretty Space as a dimension, and, of course, about deleting/moving this article. Also, maybe it'd be a good idea to rename Category:Dimensions to Category:Inter-Dimensional Fatigue (reason: this way Pretty Space can be kept in that category, and the [[IDF]] article can be added to the category too). [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 11:25, 28 December 2007 (CET)
			----
			If I understand you (which I might not), what you say about a ``strong parallel between XXX time and YYY space" is somewhat circular, that is, you assume that when the Orz say slow time, they used the word ``time". They may not have, they may have (for example) said just one Orzese word (like ``orgetgetch" (yes, I read that from one of the spammers)) which is best fit by two of our words, one of which just happens to be time.

			And now for the others -

			Earlier on this page I have said words to the effect that we need to be careful about speculation - in my view it gets out of hand when it crosses the line between ''constraining what is possible'' and ''filling in the blanks''. Notice that while the latter is subjective and not fit for any article, the former is objective. I think it's an important difference and in the above talk I'd say we have been doing the former. At the very least I maintain, as Val does, that we can use it to improve IDF-related pages (actually it looks like Val has already started this). All this could be a symptom of inadequate discussion in the past.

			Anyway, I think we can keep things under control by following the example set by the relevant section of the Orz page, which sets a precedent for now.

			I'm still inclined to keep this page, or at least not merge it with Orz communications, for reasons I've said. In the case of the latter, or perhaps in any case, I'm in favour of Val's idea about Category:Inter-Dimensional Fatigue replacing Category:Dimensions. If we get rid of this page just because we don't think below is necessarily significant (which I don't accept, I think the discussion above shows that below is part of an important mystery), there are many other pages which should go.

			We do need some input, but there's no hurry :) Happy new year. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 01:12, 29 December 2007 (CET)

Valaggar: wl

2007-12-28T10:32:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:32, 28 December 2007
Line 118:		Line 118:

	Also, to Fyzixfighter, Svdb, PsiPhi and so on:<br>		Also, to Fyzixfighter, Svdb, PsiPhi and so on:<br>
	So what do we do with the theory/ies on this talk page? I understand that you probably oppose including them in the articles, or in a speculation page, but the point is that certain parts on Orz communications and other pages are rendered obsolete by this theory. Those obsolete parts should then probably be revised, as it now can be seen that they're not so cast in stone. I'm talking about the outside/above/below definitions, about classifying Pretty Space as a dimension, and, of course, about deleting/moving this article. Also, maybe it'd be a good idea to rename Category:Dimensions to Category:Inter-Dimensional Fatigue (reason: this way Pretty Space can be kept in that category, and the IDF article can be added to the category too). [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 11:25, 28 December 2007 (CET)		So what do we do with the theory/ies on this talk page? I understand that you probably oppose including them in the articles, or in a speculation page, but the point is that certain parts on Orz communications and other pages are rendered obsolete by this theory. Those obsolete parts should then probably be revised, as it now can be seen that they're not so cast in stone. I'm talking about the outside/above/below definitions, about classifying Pretty Space as a dimension, and, of course, about deleting/moving this article. Also, maybe it'd be a good idea to rename Category:Dimensions to Category:Inter-Dimensional Fatigue (reason: this way Pretty Space can be kept in that category, and the [[IDF]] article can be added to the category too). [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 11:25, 28 December 2007 (CET)

Valaggar: Fyzix, Svdb, PsiPhi and others: Please reply to the question in my last paragraph (about IDF lore that is not cast in stone, and about the treatment to be administered to the page Below)

2007-12-28T10:25:45Z

Fyzix, Svdb, PsiPhi and others: Please reply to the question in my last paragraph (about IDF lore that is not cast in stone, and about the treatment to be administered to the page *Below*)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:25, 28 December 2007
Line 110:		Line 110:

	I have another theory for what time could be which I'll put here soon. Regarding what to do with articles, perhaps we could put a list of self-consistent theories somewhere, IDF theories perhaps, a bit like the theories section of the Orz page. In general I think this discussion can help to polish IDF related pages, as from a recent edit I guess you've seen. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 02:04, 28 December 2007 (CET)		I have another theory for what time could be which I'll put here soon. Regarding what to do with articles, perhaps we could put a list of self-consistent theories somewhere, IDF theories perhaps, a bit like the theories section of the Orz page. In general I think this discussion can help to polish IDF related pages, as from a recent edit I guess you've seen. --[[User:Zeracles\|Zeracles]] 02:04, 28 December 2007 (CET)

			----

			"We are too happy, in this slow time heavy space" seems to create a strong parallel between XXX time and YYY space. If we go with XXX time not being a subset of time, then we have to do the same thing with space. Which, I'd say, would lead to unnecessary complications.

			As to the page about theories — Svdb [[Talk:VUX_Beast#Linch-Nas-Ploh\|strongly opposes]] this idea, it seems. And judging from the type of speculation that tended to parasite a lot of pages here, I guess that his reluctance has a good reason (by the way, funny to look at the Zoq=Frog thing again after so much time).

			Also, to Fyzixfighter, Svdb, PsiPhi and so on:<br>
			So what do we do with the theory/ies on this talk page? I understand that you probably oppose including them in the articles, or in a speculation page, but the point is that certain parts on Orz communications and other pages are rendered obsolete by this theory. Those obsolete parts should then probably be revised, as it now can be seen that they're not so cast in stone. I'm talking about the outside/above/below definitions, about classifying Pretty Space as a dimension, and, of course, about deleting/moving this article. Also, maybe it'd be a good idea to rename Category:Dimensions to Category:Inter-Dimensional Fatigue (reason: this way Pretty Space can be kept in that category, and the IDF article can be added to the category too). [[User:Valaggar\|Valaggar]] 11:25, 28 December 2007 (CET)

Talk:*Below* - Revision history

Zeracles: reply

Valaggar: reply

Zeracles: reply

Valaggar: reply

Zeracles: *spacetime*

Valaggar: addition (detailed anti-*Pretty Space* part)

Valaggar: reply

Zeracles: happy new year

Valaggar: wl

Valaggar: Fyzix, Svdb, PsiPhi and others: Please reply to the question in my last paragraph (about IDF lore that is not cast in stone, and about the treatment to be administered to the page *Below*)

Talk:Below - Revision history

Zeracles: spacetime

Valaggar: addition (detailed anti-Pretty Space part)

Valaggar: Fyzix, Svdb, PsiPhi and others: Please reply to the question in my last paragraph (about IDF lore that is not cast in stone, and about the treatment to be administered to the page Below)