Editing Talk:264: Choices: Part 1

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 8: Line 8:
 
::So, is Megan at our "real world" or just having a mystic dream?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 
::So, is Megan at our "real world" or just having a mystic dream?--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 15:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 
:::That is a false dilemma. She enters another world, which seems to be something like the afterlife. Just because supernatural or absurd things happen, we can't draw the conclusion that some main character is dreaming! Cf. [[1013: Wake Up Sheeple]].
 
:::That is a false dilemma. She enters another world, which seems to be something like the afterlife. Just because supernatural or absurd things happen, we can't draw the conclusion that some main character is dreaming! Cf. [[1013: Wake Up Sheeple]].
:One concern Randall has expressed more than once — about the unhealthy tendency of people to leap to conclusions and then feel certain without proof — is manifest on Explain XKCD frequently when people irrationally make claims of certitude about the meaning of a cartoon. In  [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/258:_Conspiracy_Theories Conspiracy Theories] Cueball talks about how theorists are sometimes correct but always (methodologically) wrong because they lack proof. Likewise the OP in this thread states with certainty something that is no more than a guess. Another example is [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/263:_Certainty Certainty], making a similar point in regard to political discussion. It's scary that someone can see comics like those ones that come right before this, and still make the irrational mistake of conflating evidence with proof. That you think you figured something out doesn't mean it's definite. When you read into what someone says, you are only guessing, and feeling certain shows your worldview is too simplistic. —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 15:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 
  
 
Who else would probably do this if it happened to them? I have to admit I probably would, even though technically a hole in reality would be the most likely thing to kill me horribly ever. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 02:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 
Who else would probably do this if it happened to them? I have to admit I probably would, even though technically a hole in reality would be the most likely thing to kill me horribly ever. -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.155|108.162.250.155]] 02:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Line 19: Line 18:
  
 
:: Comments like these make me believe that we should try and get <rant></rant> tags approved in the html standard and make browsers render them as blank space unless you click on them. I could write a bigger rant in response to this, because, you know, [[386|someone is wrong on the internet]]. But I will [[1081|restrain myself]]. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.252.167|162.158.252.167]] 01:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 
:: Comments like these make me believe that we should try and get <rant></rant> tags approved in the html standard and make browsers render them as blank space unless you click on them. I could write a bigger rant in response to this, because, you know, [[386|someone is wrong on the internet]]. But I will [[1081|restrain myself]]. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.252.167|162.158.252.167]] 01:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
:A more likely reason we don't see a "hole" in reality is that it could be invisible from inside the universe. Light and everything else may just go around it, being limited to functioning in this universe. At best, it'd probably bounce off. But perfect mirrors can be hard to see if they're a hole in reality. And just as likely, anything passing into the "hole" may cease to exist. Remember that one reasonable model of matter and energy is that they are condition states of the fabric of the universe, itself. If an atom is just a collection of quarks that each are nothing more than the status of a quantum of universe, then they can no more leave that fabric than a the characters on your screen can leap off and run around on the desk in front of you. They would cease to exist, because they're just a condition of the display you're looking at. Your body may simply be a data state of the universe where you are, like the pixels on your monitor. — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 15:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Template used on this page: