Forum: Author Hangout

Repeating Day Issues.

joyR 🚫

A repeating day scenario typically has the main character living and reliving the same day over and over. Usually the main character has to 'do' something in order to escape the 'loop' in time. I'm sure you are familiar with such stories and/or films.

But how much do you think about the dynamics involved? Or rather the logic that such stories typically totally ignore.

First, the scenario. Our MC is stuck reliving the same day over and over, this continues long enough that everything that happens, every word spoken by all the characters is predictable after enough iterations.

Therein lies the first problem. Our intrepid MC interacts with the other people and with objects. If our MC is the only one aware he is reliving the same day then everything else must be exactly repeated. Exactly means that everything remains identical to that which happened on day one. Our MC is therefore a 'ghost', able to see, hear and move around, but unable to interact at all.

Problem two. Our 'ghost' MC can choose what to do, where to go, etc. But. What happens if one day he gets bored, angry or depressed and simply stays in bed all day? If he had a conversation with a waitress, does she still speak her side of their conversation? Does she still serve him his order? If no, then the day is not repeated identically. If yes, then how do others react to her talking to herself? Who eats and pays for his meal?

The only way in which our MC could change his day one behaviour is if the repeated day somehow adjusts to his behaviour. If that is the case then the day isn't repeated exactly. The same day is recreated but with all his actions allowed for. Items he moves in later days are not tripped over by the other characters, conversations happen, or don't without anyone other than our MC realising the differences.

Problem three. Our MC tells another character what is happening. Proves it by seemingly knowing the future, predicts who walks in next, what they say, who drops a tray, etc. All seems good. But consider this. Up to this point only our MC is aware and only he can change his actions which are automatically 'written' into the days events so that nothing he does or does not do affects anyone else. Except now we have two characters who are aware, who can do and say things they didn't on day one. Worse, for this to work the day has to adapt to both of their actions to keep the pretence of the days repeating. I say pretence because as soon as changes occur, the day isn't an exact repeat.

Problem four. How widespread is this? For example, the TV is on n the cafe, each day the same programmes, same national news, same local news. For this to happen the 'effect' must be widespread enough to include the TV networks and therefore everyone who watched them on day one. People not reliving the same day are going to notice if the same national and local news is repeated day after day. Conversely, if the 'effect' is localised then what happens if our MC sets a building on fire on day nine? If the 'effect' is localised then is the fire reported o local news? If yes then how without viewers 'outside' the affected area seeing it? If no, because the day is 'looping' then how far can our MC go? Burn down the entire town or affected area? Worse. How do the other 'unaware' characters react when the building that burnt to the ground yesterday and should still be smoking, is suddenly intact again? Do those characters walk into the burning store because that is what they did on day one?

Of course all of these issues could be explained by having an 'evil genius' who is all powerful. Thus the scenario can be edited for each anomaly to smoothly mesh. But that means our 'evil genius' is a slave to our MC's whims, he has to 'clean up' every single anomaly in real time. Worse, for him, her has to do the same for every character our MC makes aware. What would be the point? The evil genius wasn't clever enough to realise he'd end up working 24 hours a day, every day just to keep one guy stuck in an endless loop that actually isn't a loop. Not exactly a genius move, is it?

Groundhog Day only works if basic logic is ignored.

Replies: Keet helmut_meukel richardshagrin DBActive Grey Wolf LupusDei Remus2 LupusDei richardshagrin

Keet 🚫

@joyR

You could look at it from another point of view. Usually a day-repeating scenario is set because a certain goal must be achieved or an event must prevented from happening which breaks the repeating. That doesn't necessarily require the day to be exactly the same, it requires that the start of the day is the same. What happens during the day can be mostly the same but the MC has to make changes in what he does or doesn't do to reach the target that breaks the repeating. Every time he fails the day repeats. The usual story is that he first has to discover the day is repeating, than he has to discover that something has to happen (or be prevented) to break the repeating. Once those points are clear he can work to achieve the day breaking, most likely with multiple failed attempts. Nothing says that every day has to be exactly the same, I would rather think that only the starting part of the day is the same but that the MC would quickly try to change his actions to specifically avoid an exact repeat.

helmut_meukel 🚫
Updated:

@joyR

Groundhog Day only works if basic logic is ignored.

No.

The premise for "Groundhog Day" is the discontinuation of time.

It might be one day, a few days, or even many years as in most do-over stories.

Remember the old vinyl records? Sometimes the needle would jump back into the groove already played.

Because the MC is the only one aware of the restart, he will act not the same as in the previous iteration. He may use his knowledge to play practical jokes or to try to change his actions, causing changes in the actions of others. He may get bolder after multiple iterations, because any consequences will be gone after the restart.

There is a risk however, the MC doesn't know if it's an endless loop or if the discontinuity ends after a condition is met.

'Groundhog Day' is not repeating the day, it's restarting the day!

Even if you can convince another person that you know what will happen next and don't end in a straitjacket it's futile. After restart this person has no knowledge and you'll have to convince her again and again.

HM.

BTW, any do-over scenario where the MC restarts with changed conditions (other siblings, parents, gender, ...) is no simple time discontinuity.

Replies: joyR awnlee jawking

joyR 🚫

@helmut_meukel

Remember the old vinyl records? Sometimes the needle would jump back into the groove already played.

Because the MC is the only one aware of the restart, he will act not the same as in the previous iteration. He may use his knowledge to play practical jokes or to try to change his actions, causing changes in the actions of others.

You can't have it both ways.

Your needle jumps back, but plays the identical music again.

Or his actions can change the actions of others.

Pick one.

Replies: helmut_meukel

helmut_meukel 🚫
Updated:

@joyR

Your needle jumps back, but plays the identical music again.

That would be the situation if no-one is aware of the restart. In most 'Groundhog Day' stories the MC neads his time to realize the day is repeating. As long as he acts the same there is no change.

How long it takes the MC to become aware of the repetitions depends on the events during the repeated time span. If it's just another dull day, the MC might realize something is wrong after the second or third repetition.

Or his actions can change the actions of others.

When he becomes fully aware he will act differently enough to cause changes in other people's actions.

Therefore I pick both.

HM.

(edited typo)

awnlee jawking 🚫

@helmut_meukel

'Groundhog Day' is not repeating the day, it's restarting the day!

That's the approach I took with a story I started writing (but never finished).

An 'agent' was deposited into a body with the memories of that body rather than his own, but with a compulsion to 'fix' something. If he failed, he had to restart the day until he succeeded. Sex might have been involved ;-)

Complications involved rival agents whose purpose was to make a change favourable to their own faction.

I haven't explained it very well and the story is a long way from completion. so there's little point in bombarding me with objections and scenario holes :-(

AJ

Replies: joyR

joyR 🚫

@awnlee jawking

I haven't explained it very well and the story is a long way from completion. so there's little point in bombarding me with objections and scenario holes

Rest assured I will leave your hole(s) alone..!!

:)

Seriously my post isn't aimed at any specific story. Just comments upon the lack of logic in all of them. Understandable since the authors are writing a story not a thesis, but still worth noting as inconsistencies.

Replies: Keet

Keet 🚫

@joyR

Just comments upon the lack of logic in all of them. Understandable since the authors are writing a story not a thesis, but still worth noting as inconsistencies.

The lack of logic is only true for repeating-day stories. I don't think there exists a story like that. It would be like writing one day in a chapter and copying the chapter for however many days you want to 'write'. The type of stories I think you are referring to are restart-day stories where the same days restart in a loop. That doesn't mean that the day has to be exactly the same as the previous one, just that it restarts at the same origin as the previous day, presuming that at some point a certain condition is met that breaks the loop.

richardshagrin 🚫

@joyR

Ground Hog is pork sausage.

DBActive 🚫

@joyR

You're looking for logic in a scenario that is totally without any logic other than the rules that the author constructs.

Grey Wolf 🚫

@joyR

Groundhog Day only works if basic logic is ignored.

No, it just follows different logic than you're ascribing to it.

Think of it as a computer program (a complicated one - a video game, perhaps). And, this video game follows logic and rules and reacts to the player, but it does NOT have randomness in it. Many people who played video games in the early 1980's will know what I mean - many arcade games at the time followed exactly the same pattern if the player followed exactly the same pattern. Memorize the pattern, win the game. The game could still react - chase the player, counterattack if a base was left unblasted, etc - but it would do those things the exact same way every time.

'Groundhog Day' et al follows that logic. At the restart time, the entire universe is reordered such that everything except the time-loop character(s) mind is the same. There are variations - in some, the time-loop character can 'bring back' changes to their own body, or can age. However, the point is, everything else starts out exactly the same.

So, if the time-loop character kills themselves at one second past midnight, everyone else acts as they would have if that character hadn't been there, because they're not there. If the time-loop character is there, they act entirely as they would.

Obviously this assumes that Waitress W will react the same to Time-Loop Character X the same way regardless of whether X enters the restaurant at 11am or 11:00:05 or 10:59:55, etc. Otherwise character X has an impossible task of needing to hit time marks to the second. However, that's a minor logic leap, not a significant one. In some cases, X needs split-second timing (Phil and the purloined bag of cash in 'Groundhog Day', for instance). Other things are more variable.

One piece of logic is that the universe is not random in a way that makes a difference to the events within the time-loop. If quantum variation, 'free will', etc are truly random and cause a significant change in behavior, the pattern will break and X will have trouble. However, X can simply retry until the randomness breaks in their favor.

Also, what allows the loop exit may not depend significantly on anyone other than X. If the exit condition is X achieving the right state of mind, everyone else is irrelevant, in the end, except to the extent that they allow X to find the goal.

How one accomplishes the reset of initial conditions is left as an exercise for the reader. I can think of several mechanisms that are 'good enough' for most fiction. However, given that, no agent is required to do anything other than trigger the reset back to initial conditions. Everyone else simply does what they do, blissfully unaware of the loop.

Replies: joyR palamedes

joyR 🚫

@Grey Wolf

Obviously this assumes that Waitress W will react the same to Time-Loop Character X the same way regardless of whether X enters the restaurant at 11am or 11:00:05 or 10:59:55, etc. Otherwise character X has an impossible task of needing to hit time marks to the second. However, that's a minor logic leap, not a significant one. In some cases, X needs split-second timing (Phil and the purloined bag of cash in 'Groundhog Day', for instance). Other things are more variable.

First, I understand your post, I just don't agree with it. As with HM you seems to want things both ways. Timing isn't a minor logic leap. If each day is identical and thus predictable then timing is important, actually crucial, because this means each day is an exact repeat of day one to everyone but the MC.

As soon as you allow things to change, characters to have free will, then the day isn't an exact repeat. A domino effect is created. Our MC enters the cafe a minute late, her next customer is served a minute late, they cross the street and a car swerves because she is now late crossing the road, the car hits a... and on and on. The domino effect isn't actually correct, the errors spread out much like a virus, each character affects every character they interact with. By lunchtime very little could be even similar to the previous iteration. Why does that matter? Because supposedly everything is predictable, our MC has lived through enough iterations to know 'what happens next'. But this is only possible if he changes nothing during that time. So yes, exact timing matters.

You could argue that once he knows the routine and can 'predict' everything, that timing can be less important, except that the MC cannot then predict anything.

Replies: Grey Wolf helmut_meukel

Grey Wolf 🚫
Updated:

@joyR

We have no way of knowing whether exact timing matters. In the entirety of human existence, to the best of our knowledge no one has ever run through the same day, from the same starting point twice.

Therefore, we don't know if the waitress will act differently if the protagonist arrives 5 or 10 seconds or early or late. Or a minute. Or 1 second. Whatever timing matters the protagonist can learn - or it simply may not matter.

Similarly, we have no way of knowing if the effects spread or are dampened down. Suppose Phil arrives at a cafe two minutes earlier, has a meal, and leaves at the exact time he usually leaves. The waitress may react slightly differently due to the two-minute gap. The other patrons may react slightly differently. However, if Phil is basically himself, and doesn't do anything outrageous, and the other patrons aren't leaving at the exact same time, the entire difference may be dampened out by the massive similarities of every other thing about the cafe. No one else is coming or going, the waitress is where she needs to be just about the entire time, he consumed the same food, etc.

Without running the experiment, it's an unknown, not a logic hole, and the writer is free to claim that 'it works this way'. There's simply no way to prove them wrong.

Putting it another way, I can completely agree that:

the day isn't an exact repeat

Of course it isn't. That's the point. The question here - and, again, it's not answerable in a factual sense - is whether it matters that the day isn't an exact repeat.

If the protagonist is launching a satellite (or themselves) into orbit, split-second timing matters. For the bag heist in 'Groundhog Day', split-second timing matters.

But for a lot of things, timing may not matter in the slightest. For the 'Jeopardy' scene in 'Groundhog Day', 'Jeopardy' will show at the same time and have the same questions. Phil can't alter that. His getting to the room where people are watching 'Jeopardy' a minute earlier or later won't change the show and probably won't materially change their reaction.

Your argument that it's a 'basic logic' problem assumes that there's provable 'basic logic' involved. There isn't. We have zero experimental evidence on the effect of minor timing differences on people's behavior.

What you're really arguing is that 'it doesn't work that way' and the author can't claim that it does, without any proof that it doesn't work that way.

Replies: joyR

joyR 🚫

@Grey Wolf

The question here - and, again, it's not answerable in a factual sense - is whether it matters that the day isn't an exact repeat.

Didn't I just explain why it does matter?

helmut_meukel 🚫

@joyR

If each day is identical and thus predictable then

Obviously you don't get it.
1) each day starts identical.
If no-one remembers the last iteration, then and only then the day is identical. But this wouldn't be worth a story.
2) the memory of the MC is not restored to its state prior to the iteration, so the MC will have multiple déjà-vus and start acting differently causing others to react differently.

My problem with "Groundhog Day" scenarios: why is only the MC's memory not reset? The whole world is restored to its state at the end of the previous day including the MC physically.
I've never seen a "Groundhog Day" story where more people remember the previous iteration(s).

HM.

Replies: joyR awnlee jawking Mushroom

joyR 🚫

@helmut_meukel

2) the memory of the MC is not restored to its state prior to the iteration, so the MC will have multiple déjà-vus and start acting differently causing others to react differently.

As previously, causing others to act differently does matter.

The 'groundhog day' scenario starts with each being an exact repeat of the first, it has to be because otherwise the MC couldn't learn the details that precisely repeat and thus allow him to predict events before they happen. Later that premise is dropped.

If however each day only started the same then it isn't a single day repeated, it is a series of days with the same date. Events don't play out exactly each day so the MC couldn't learn then 'predict'.

Either scenario stands, but shifting the story from one to the other throws up jarring contradictions.

Replies: LupusDei

LupusDei 🚫
Updated:

@joyR

Each day starts the same, except MC memory that is updated by previous results.

Any event or action MC doesn't directly influence happens the same. Other entities can react to changes, but can't initiate them.

I agree that in "real" free quantum world the very first change would create avalanche of subsequent changes that would change everything very rapidly. But the world in Groundhog Day type scenario isn't free, isn't randomized. Instead, it is scripted and remarkably inflexible, events and entities react to changes initiated by MC with introducing minimal intended change to their behavior and actions.

If MC put an obstacle in someone's path, they may maneuver around it if they notice it in time, but unless MC was in earshot wouldn't likely wonder about the obstacle, and unless MC had intended that to happen, wouldn't mention the event in their absence, likely returning to the previous track as if nothing had happened, instead of switching to a completely new course of action. Unless, that permanent change of track was the goal of the obstacle, unless there exists that alternative script in the very limited pathways of the interpreted universe.

Random actions not scripted by the god/author cannot happen. Actions of the MC may seem free, but they may only lead to finite number of possible outcomes. Every action of the MC is switch that may or may not initiate different tread of the script.

In video games, most, if not all narrative based games, like action-adventure or point-and-click, or single person roleplaying, or narrated single person mode of first person shooters are all built in very similar way.

You move between limited number of possible scenes; in each scene your actions are relatively free, results of those actions determine with scene may happen next, and may or may not change parameters of those or some other scenes. Ultimately, the sequence of scenes and modification actions in them will lead to one of finite number of possible endings (oftentimes, the positive outcome is singular, or there's just two, really, with or without minor modifications).

Those repetition scenarios act in a similar way, it isn't free random world, it is a pre-scripted game with the MC as the player.

Replies: Grey Wolf awnlee jawking

Grey Wolf 🚫

@LupusDei

This is, essentially, the 'simulation' hypothesis. Note that, if God is the author, the number of possible scenarios may be infinite.

However, consider an alternate view, a spin on the Calvinist view of predestination. God knows how the day 'should' go (even 'must' go). For His own reasons, perhaps He allows the day to repeat many times in alternative ways to teach the protagonist a lesson, after which He returns the universe to how it was predestined to go. In that scenario, every other person will behave as they are predestined to behave unless affected by the protagonist.

An omnipotent God would obviously be capable of creating a time loop, otherwise He would not be omnipotent, now would He?

P.S. Side note: I'm not sure why a God in a predestined universe would find it useful to teach anyone a lesson, since their destiny is set, but nevertheless He certainly appears to have done so with Job, for instance. I am very much not a fan of predestination and find many of the arguments for it ridiculous, but - for the purposes of argument - it's one angle to view time loops from.

Replies: LupusDei Dominions Son

LupusDei 🚫
Updated:

@Grey Wolf

Note that, if God is the author, the number of possible scenarios may be infinite.

Yes, but even then, Allowed Scenarios < < Probable Scenarios < < Physically Possible Scenarios; while all infinite, they represent different magnitudes of infinity.

Dominions Son 🚫

@Grey Wolf

P.S. Side note: I'm not sure why a God in a predestined universe would find it useful to teach anyone a lesson,

Shits and giggles?

Think about it, what is the greatest danger an all knowing, all powerful, immortal being would face?

The answer is simple, boredom.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@LupusDei

Any event or action MC doesn't directly influence happens the same.

It's interesting to postulate how fast changes might ripple outwards.

If Joe Ordinary got out of bed the opposite side, might 9/11 have turned out differently?

AJ

Replies: Mushroom

Mushroom 🚫

@awnlee jawking

If Joe Ordinary got out of bed the opposite side, might 9/11 have turned out differently?

Sure, that is the very basis for "Butterfly Effect".

I even included that as a concept in one of my stories. Where somebody rebooted to 1980, and the outcome of the Iran Hostage Crisis was radically different. He remembered it specifically one way (the hostages being killed, Carter resigning in disgrace, and Mondale becoming the 40th President), where as the world he jumps into has a history like our own.

And I have read other similar stories in here, but I was never sure if the changes were intentional as mine was, or simply the author not really knowing the original references that well. I decided in my story to make it painfully obvious that other things half a world away had changed.

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Mushroom

Sure, that is the very basis for "Butterfly Effect".

I wasn't questioning the trope but the speed of propagation of the ripples.

AJ

Replies: LupusDei Mushroom

LupusDei 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Strongly taken, speed of light, at least as the top limit.

The bottom limit may be zero, if the universe is sticky enough and absorb change with minimal give that diminishes (instead of exponential growth) as function of distance from the source of change.

So effectively, that's for the author to decide.

Replies: Grey Wolf awnlee jawking

Grey Wolf 🚫

@LupusDei

The point of the "Butterfly Effect" isn't that stepping on a butterfly in China will cause a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico (or the like). The point of it is that there is a vanishingly small but non-zero chance of it causing a greatly magnified event.

A corollary (that I've seen written, but is often unstated) is that the vast majority of butterflies do not cause hurricanes when trampled. The effect dampens out 99.99999% of the time.

The later discussion about message-board propagation are interesting but, I think, unrelated, because that's an intentional propagation through a medium intended to propagate messages. The real 'butterfly effect' is unintentional propagation through an unexpected medium.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@LupusDei

speed of light

That appears not to be a limit for causality ;-)

AJ

Mushroom 🚫

@awnlee jawking

I wasn't questioning the trope but the speed of propagation of the ripples.

In a world of instant communication, almost no time at all.

Just look at how fast COVID went global. We live in an era now where such "shockwaves" could traverse the planet in days if not hours.

Simple case in point, in TL 1, a global political blogger falls down while stepping off a curb right after making a post on how uncaring people are and nobody matters. They fall in the street and are killed by a car. This causes among those that follow their blog one series of events and reactions based on their last writing.

Now in TL 2, somebody (knowingly or unknowingly) prevents them from falling and saves them. The blogger now writes a recant post, describing how a stranger helped them out and that people in fact do matter. Drastically different outcome.

We live in a world today where within hours, somebody simply making a post on a forum or talking to the right people can drastically change events.

Replies: Keet LupusDei

Keet 🚫

@Mushroom

We live in a world today where within hours, somebody simply making a post on a forum or talking to the right people can drastically change events.

Unfortunately that is a sad and very dangerous fact...

Replies: Mushroom

Mushroom 🚫

@Keet

Unfortunately that is a sad and very dangerous fact...

Only sad and dangerous when taken up by radical and unstable individuals. Myself, being a moderate I see danger and instability on all sides of the political spectrum.

As such, notice I made no comment on who this "blogger" was, or what groups followed them. It may be far-right, it may be far-left. But the reaction by radicals will take it into areas that are all out of proportion of the actions themselves. But I am sure that a great many in their minds read that, and automatically started to place "blame" based on their own beliefs.

But the general example is still valid.

LupusDei 🚫

@Mushroom

There's no need for concious communication even. Let's say, our hero realizes they went right at a corner every time until now, and turns left instead. Reflection of sun in their glasses blinds a crow who changes (or not changes) course and shit on the front window of a passing car, resulting in a crash between two or more vehicles.

Now, if we absolutely need to propagate the change overseas as fast as possible, perhaps one or more persons in one or more of those vehicles were on a phone at that time, perhaps there was a reporter doing live interview on the street.

Likewise, even without such dramatic events, anyone else who see the hero to walk the new path could be affected and choose different actions, and everyone who doesn't see him walking the previous path as well.

But that is, only if the universe is receptive to change (and author of the story want those changes to happen). Otherwise, the hero can reach their destination going the other side of the block and still causing absolutely no lasting change.

For some reason that may feel not to be very realistic, as we have this baseless assumption our own universe is randomized, but that might be prejudice.

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@LupusDei

we have this baseless assumption our own universe is randomized

'Random' is a very nebulous concept - it's probably easier to say what 'random' isn't rather than what it is. And often definitions are based around the state of our universe.

It's arguable that the effects of randomness can even out even major decision points. If Germany had won WWII, Europe would currently be a German-dominated superstate. But Germany lost WWII and Europe currently is a German-dominated superstate.

AJ

awnlee jawking 🚫

@helmut_meukel

I've never seen a "Groundhog Day" story where more people remember the previous iteration(s).

I wish I had finished the story I was writing. The competing agents could all remember the previous iterations. However none of them knew what their intended objective was.

AJ

Replies: Quasirandom

Quasirandom 🚫

@awnlee jawking

I wish you had as well.

Mushroom 🚫

@helmut_meukel

I've never seen a "Groundhog Day" story where more people remember the previous iteration(s).

Sure, the first book that I am aware of to use this concept.

"Replay", by Ken Grimwood in 1986. This is the story that interested me in the concept, and it even predates Groundhog Day by 7 years.

However, in it the main character does not repeat a single day, but their entire life. Up until the moment when they died, then he resets once again into the past. But several months advanced from his original "restart time". During his second "run-through", he realizes something else is changing events, specifically a female producer who hired Lucas and Spielberg in 1975 to create a fantasy movie that blended parts of Star Wars and ET together. And it turns out she is doing the same thing.

And during the story, they meet others doing the exact same thing. And during other reboots they meet others, one of which has gone insane with the sense of power this has given him.

I have long wanted to do my own version with this concept, but I know it will be tricky to write, as it would involve much more time compression than I have ever done before.

Replies: StarFleet Carl

StarFleet Carl 🚫

@Mushroom

"Replay", by Ken Grimwood in 1986. This is the story that interested me in the concept, and it even predates Groundhog Day by 7 years.

However, in it the main character does not repeat a single day, but their entire life. Up until the moment when they died, then he resets once again into the past. But several months advanced from his original "restart time". During his second "run-through", he realizes something else is changing events, specifically a female producer who hired Lucas and Spielberg in 1975 to create a fantasy movie that blended parts of Star Wars and ET together. And it turns out she is doing the same thing.

Thank you!

I remember reading that book with the Star Wars / ET scene, but since it was so damned long ago (I actually read it while sitting on the floor in Walden Books - back when the floor wasn't an enemy.) I couldn't find it with the clues I had.

Replies: Mushroom

Mushroom 🚫

@StarFleet Carl

Thank you!

I remember reading that book with the Star Wars / ET scene, but since it was so damned long ago (I actually read it while sitting on the floor in Walden Books - back when the floor wasn't an enemy.) I couldn't find it with the clues I had.

You are welcome. To be honest, I have been toying with the concept of a "do over" novel long before it became a thing in Erotica. All because of that book. And in the short stories I have written with the concept, I tended to make them a bit darker, as some segments of that book were.

But this should seem familiar to you:

He read the list of credits with almost as much astonishment as the film itself had generated: Directed by Steven Spielberg … Written and Produced by Pamela Phillips … Creative Consultant and Special Effects Supervisor, George Lucas.

How could all this be? Spielberg's first big movie, Jaws, hadn't even begun shooting yet, and it would be two years before Lucas turned the industry on its ear with Star Wars. But most puzzling, most intriguing, of all—Who the hell was Pamela Phillips?

This is probably the ultimate seminal "Do Over Story". And others going back and repeating their lives also was a key part of the concept.

palamedes 🚫

@Grey Wolf

Many people who played video games in the early 1980's will know what I mean - many arcade games at the time followed exactly the same pattern if the player followed exactly the same pattern. Memorize the pattern, win the game.

This was featured in the movie Pixels (2015)

Replies: Grey Wolf Mushroom

Grey Wolf 🚫

@palamedes

It's in the book 'Ready Player One', too. Unclear if the challenges in the movie follow that model, but it actually seems likely that they do, at a very high level of complexity (otherwise they might well be insolvable without random factors involving themselves). But the book includes learning the precise pattern of historic video games and playing them perfectly.

Replies: palamedes Mushroom

palamedes 🚫

@Grey Wolf

Ready Player One

I heard of the movie but a book you say... Well guess what I just downloaded .... now all I need is a rainy day.

Mushroom 🚫

@Grey Wolf

It's in the book 'Ready Player One', too.

That was a great movie of culture of that era. Much more so than that Adam Sandler one. I still watch it once every few months, because of all the pop culture references scattered throughout the film.

I do have the book, but not read it yet. But knowing what I do of the second book, I have no intention of reading it. It was pretty much panned by most who read Ready Player Two.

Replies: Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf 🚫

@Mushroom

The first book is good. Not great, but good.

It's one of those cases where the book is much better than the movie and the movie is much better than the book. It depends on which point in the story you are. The movie 'Hollywood-izes' one major character and takes liberties with some good plot elements. On the other hand, the movie has a far more inventive second challenge that makes much more sense than the book's second challenge.

It's worth a read. It's not high art. In my opinion Earnest Cline has much better ideas than execution, and is prone to following his worst impulses on occasion. On the other hand, he's doing very well by it.

Mushroom 🚫

@palamedes

This was featured in the movie Pixels (2015)

That was a great short, but the actual movie they made based on it was horrible. The moment they claimed there were "cheat codes" in Pac-Man, I knew it was pure garbage.

But in the early games, the random generation algorithms were crude by modern standards, and generally resulted in the game behaving the exact same way every time (normally because of the use of a common seed as opposed to a generated seed). And many of us knew these patterns and how they could be used.

One of the most well known was the "break area" in an original Namco Pac-Man. Where at the start you turn around immediately, go forward to the next turn and go up. Hit the wall, and you could rest there forever, the ghosts would never find you. That let you go to the bathroom, light a smoke, or do whatever you wanted before resuming play.

https://games.lol/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/pac-man-gameplay-free-download-ghosts-pc.png

Most of us serious players in the day knew of this, and it let us relax for a minute before resuming play. I know that in at least one tournament, they allowed it to be used, but for no more than 5 minutes for things like bathroom breaks.

Donkey Kong, and most other games had similar exploits, where there were spots you could not be killed in. And following the same pattern during play always resulted in the same outcome.

But Pixels took it into ground that did not exist. Most of the games in that movie were from 1983 and before. Yet they felt the need to somehow insert "cheat codes" into them. Something that did not occur until 1986 when a developer forgot to remove a development test code he had inserted into a game.

LupusDei 🚫
Updated:

@joyR

Repeated day scenarios can be organically explained within simulation hypothesis. So, with the starting point being that the reality observed by us is a simulation in the first place.

1. A current "day" leads to unacceptable state.

The current state may be "unacceptable" to whims of (from our point of view) all-powerful being outside and/or in control of the flow of the simulation (who is a damn cheater and wants the day to lead to a predefined result), or somehow break the flow of the simulation itself independently of conscious input of any rational being(s), blindly leading to the "jumped vinyl record track" effect somehow.

Either may hypothetically include prediction of deep consequences arbitrary amounts of time downstream, so the "universe breaking" micro event may be arbitrary mundane and seemingly inconsequential. (This also becomes the exit condition for the resulting loop.)

A typical trope is that character A should vow character B. Possibly, to even vow in a certain predefined way. It's rather easy to see how it may profoundly change outcomes of the universe downstream, even without requiring them to produce or not produce certain possible offspring. Still, it could be delusional misinterpretation of the exit conditions in hindsight by the change agent, as the real exit condition could be any other minute difference between the final day of the loop and all of the previous. (So, the "perfect day" approach in Groundhog Day wherein he tried to save many lives and otherwise make as many people happy as reasonably possible in that single repetitious day, actually does have some sense if you're ever trapped in such a loop as the change agent, but doesn't guarantee success anyhow.)

2. The simulation is interrupted.

I mean, the whole "reality" is stopped and, presumably, discarded. The universe as we know it cases to exist. Not some localized bubble, the whole what is, planet, solar system, the whole Hubble volume and beyond. Everything. Just because that guy didn't get that girl on that day.

With one singular exception, memory record of a single entity -- the change agent -- is preserved.

3. A recorded state (the start of the "day") is loaded.

Now, there's several options there.

Obviously, wanting different outcome, it's no good to reload the preserved previous state of the reality (the simulation) with no changes whatsoever and the same pseudo-random sequence seed, as that would lead to exact repetition.

The state could be reloaded as is, but the pseudo-random seed reroll, leading to complete uncertainty. Anything that could possibly happen, within laws of physics of that universe, with the given starting parameters, could probably happen. If the goal is to merely obtain any changes it would be best approach, as the exact repetition in that case is borderline impossible. However, if we are looking for a certain predefined result (or group of results) it's unusable, as it may take infinite number of reloads to roll that out of pure randomness.

Thus, apparently the approach in this case is to preserve the pseudo-random seed, but make point change to the preserved state. It could, in principle, be anything. Our titular character could wake up filthy rich, or a cripple, or discover magical powers, or his suitcase could suddenly be yellow instead of gray, without him having any memories of any of those properties yesterday or memories of any possible future. But the class of divine intervention that interest us in this particular case is those where

4. Change agent's memory is modified, updating it with the state at the end of the previous run of the simulation.

In effect, they now have memories of one or more possible future(s). We have to trust the God doing this it's something that had, indeed already happened, or even could, but in principle, makes no difference. It could be anything, it could be wholly invented future or futures, or any other information. However, if the only new information is lottery numbers rolled that day there's still no guarantee they would identify this information and use it for a "free will" decision to buy a lottery ticket and strike those exact numbers. It still may require infinite reruns until the exit condition is met. Making them remember the whole day (and all or most failed attempts of it) makes more chance they would, indeed, initiate change.

5. The simulation is restated.

Since it is not re-randomized, everyone and everything anywhere in the universe would do exact same things, think exact same thoughts, make exactly the same "free will" decisions, unless and until their state is modified. This is true for the change agent themselves, they too would do exactly the same things exactly the same way, say exactly the same words and anything, until they realize the presence of memory stream already describing those exact events. That realization modifies their state and allows different decisions and actions.

Now, in really-real quantum world their next draw of breath would propagate new quantum states all around with the speed of light. The reality would be near-instantly be re-randomized. Numbers in any lottery they could possibly learn about, even less participate, wouldn't come out the same.

Thus we need this happening within a simulation for the repeated-but-not-quite the same day effect to happen. Simulation can have some inflexibility built in, either be broken in quasi-independent streams or in same other way actively work to preserve the outcome of not-quite-enough-modified parts. Perhaps every object and entity have one or more independent pseudo random seeds, all preserved, or even periodically updated with the recorded states unless some threshold of active intervention by the change agent is detected. So the lottery numbers could be the same, every time, but the girl you try to say you knew them be angry, sad, or happy depending on how you handle it, and act accordingly, as dictated by their own "free will" decision stream.

The red dice, thrown between 11:13:44 and 11:14:15 would always yield 5, but if you choose green dice it would yield 3, or if you hesitate until 11:14:16 with the red dice it would yield 2, but if you somehow manage to throw it before 11:13:43 it would be 4. And so forth, with all physically possible consequences anywhere up to distance limited by the speed of light (according to our current understanding of this particular universe we are, supposedly, sharing (there's no guarantee of that to indeed be the case, especially considering the fact that your act of reading this is necessarily both spatially and temporally disconnected from my act of typing it)).

6. The resulting state is analyzed.

7. Repeat as necessary.

Well, it's possibly conceivable that the main simulation is merely paused and what is re-run until a desirable state is reached is indeed just a limited subset, a "bubble" that is then reintegrated in the main tread afterwards. If local conditions doesn't allow (or expect) super-luminar travel or communication and the repeat period is as small as a single Earth day (or anything less than a decade, really), such a bubble may be as small as the Solar system, isolated. If they're really stingy about processing resources, it can be even smaller, indeed a local bubble, only including a subset of space the change agent isn't expected to leave. A clever implementation could even selectively activate sections of space and entities as needed, while everything and everyone outside direct reach of change agent's influence remain plain, dumb recording of the original run, the original "day".

Remus2 🚫

@joyR

There are multiple paradoxes in a 'ground hog day' scenario. Application of logical rules therefore fail at different points dependent upon point of observation.

The stories are an escape from any possible reality. Nothing more or less than that.

Replies: Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf 🚫

@Remus2

I'm not sure that there are any inherent paradoxes if one follows the 'simulation' model. There is no way to 'prove' that 'Groundhog Day' itself, nor any other similar scenario, is not in fact a hyper-complicated simulation (up to and including a simulated 'proof' that it is not a simulation, were one offered).

Perhaps I'm missing an inherent paradox, but I don't see one. Actual time travel - maybe, maybe not.

Replies: Dominions Son Remus2

Dominions Son 🚫

@Grey Wolf

There is no way to 'prove' that 'Groundhog Day' itself, nor any other similar scenario, is not in fact a hyper-complicated simulation (up to and including a simulated 'proof' that it is not a simulation, were one offered).

Could we prove that reality as we know it isn't such a simulation?

Replies: LupusDei

LupusDei 🚫
Updated:

@Dominions Son

I have seen claims implying that there should be ways to at very least put a limit on the probability of that.

Although as I understand it, it hinges on how all-powerful the author(s) of the simulation is, and assume their processing power has limits akin of our own. If so, it takes significantly greater universe solely devoted to running the simulation of our universe. While that "outer" universe can itself be simulation within a simulation, ad infinitum, each next level must likely be larger by a magnitude to be able to house the simulation within. While there's no necessity of it, it's conceivable that laws of physics in our simulation doesn't principally differ from laws of the physics one level above. Thus, observing the grain and limits of our universe we can make, however flawed, conclusions about what kinds of universes could simulate us. If those seems extremely improbable, it's possible this the base reality, however improbable it could be in meta-univese that allow flawless nested simulations.

In another direction, any discovery of glitches, effectively proving completely arbitrary magic of some sort, or even better, prove acts of divine intervention where rules do change without conceivable reason, could potentially serve as convincing argument for proving this to be indeed a simulation.

Neither are necessary conclusive, so, in the large, simulation hypothesis remain pseudoscience.

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@LupusDei

Although as I understand it, it hinges on how all-powerful the author(s) of the simulation is, and assume their processing power has limits akin of our own. If so, it takes significantly greater universe solely devoted to running the simulation of our universe.

That also assumes that the simulation is simulating our entire "universe" to a uniform level of granularity, which would not be necessary.

Replies: LupusDei

LupusDei 🚫
Updated:

@Dominions Son

That also assumes that the simulation is simulating our entire "universe" to a uniform level of granularity, which would not be necessary.

... and what simultaneously can be a trait of our universe we might be able to pick up, if we "get ahead of the game" or if the simulation isn't updated to account for our growing ability to analyze it, or we outgrown the ability of the author(s) to expand it to fool us.

A proof that different regions of universe, spatially or temporary, have or had different levels of granularity might indeed be good argument on behalf of simulation hypothesis.

ETA: it might be why expansion of space is accelerating.

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@LupusDei

or we outgrown the ability of the author(s) to expand it to fool us.

Getting beyond our star system would require faster than light travel, and if the rules of the simulation don't allow for that, then the bounds of what needs to be simulated at maximum granularity is finite.

Replies: Keet LupusDei

Keet 🚫

@Dominions Son

Getting beyond our star system would require faster than light travel

Only if you want to live when arriving at the destination. Otherwise it just takes a very long time, many generations, at the current possible maximum speed for space travel.

Replies: Dominions Son Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@Keet

. Otherwise it just takes a very long time, many generations, at the current possible maximum speed for space travel.

Of course, building a large enough ship for a multi-generational population that can be maintained and kept operational for that long is just as much beyond our capability as FTL travel.

And if the simulator allows for that, it only expands the high resolution simulation volume by the volume of the ship itself unless/until it reaches a colonizable planet.

Replies: Mushroom

Mushroom 🚫

@Dominions Son

Of course, building a large enough ship for a multi-generational population that can be maintained and kept operational for that long is just as much beyond our capability as FTL travel.

Actually, this was one of the key concepts in the books "The Genesis Quest" and "Second Genesis" by Donald Moffitt. After discovering a key to unlocking immortality, they create a Dyson tree (a theoretical concept by Freeman Dyson - the same mane who conceptualized the Dyson Sphere) they grow a kilometers long tree and attach a ramjet to it to traverse the stars.

As the key for immortality had already been licked, they could travel at a fraction below light speed, and traverse huge distances over time.

Of course, there are other issues involved when traveling at these speeds. Like the effect of time dilation the closer you get to C. At .9999C, more than one day passes in "real time" for each day of those on such a ship. In other words, while for a crew on a ship traveling to Alpha Centari would take to them at .9999C 4 years, to those on Earth over 1,600 years would pass.

Something that at least some books even covered. Harry Turtledove wrote one where a group traveled to another star 12 LY at .5C (where the time dilation is only days per year) and needing 30 years so they traveled in suspended animation. Only at the end preparing to make the return, and being met by an FTL ship that had been invented during the 30+ years since their departure.

Then the culture shock of their returning to Earth, and realizing most they knew when they left were dead, and things had changed drastically in the 30+ years they had been away and asleep.

Replies: mauidreamer

mauidreamer 🚫

@Mushroom

Something that at least some books even covered. Harry Turtledove wrote one where a group traveled to another star 12 LY at .5C (where the time dilation is only days per year) and needing 30 years so they traveled in suspended animation. Only at the end preparing to make the return, and being met by an FTL ship that had been invented during the 30+ years since their departure.

Then the culture shock of their returning to Earth, and realizing most they knew when they left were dead, and things had changed drastically in the 30+ years they had been away and asleep.

Long before HT, RAH wrote Time for the Stars about sub-C exploration using paired twins (or descendants) to maintain realtime comms with Earth ... until Earth developed FTL drives.

Dominions Son 🚫

@Keet

Otherwise it just takes a very long time, many generations, at the current possible maximum speed for space travel.

And using such multi-generational sub-light ships, how many billions of years would it take to push the required high res simulation volume beyond 1% of 1% of the volume of the Milky Way galaxy, which itself is a tiny fraction of the full volume of our universe?

LupusDei 🚫

@Dominions Son

And proving that would be halfway on proving the hypothesis (and by extension, existence of God, or rather, peculiar subset of possible gods).

I wouldn't be so sure about either though. Even at current technology there's seems to be no principal reason why generation ships couldn't colonize the entire galaxy within few million years, assuming exponential expansion. All we need is enough commitment to start doing it.

Also, there's a recent paper claiming warp drive doesn't, after all, necessary require negative energy. If so, causality paradoxes is only thing limiting super-luminar travel (besides prohibitive energy requirements, of course; last I heard, we would need to process the Jupiter into pure energy to initiate a single jump, but that's already many many levels of magnitude less than the initial assessment (with plain out concluded there's not enough energy in the universe for any practical application), so there's at least hope.

Also, there's a paper claiming proof that some particles break classical physics principles in gravitational waves, potentially allowing for very fine grained detection of those. Well, that's just another sense.

But all that's actually besides the point. What counts is, if we prove we are indeed principally bounded to our little bubble (however large) or prove we don't see what we should see, in any indirect way, it indeed significantly decreases requirements for the simulation hypothesis increasing possibility it's true. Conversely, any new level of observation, or even just potential ability for, decrease it, on itself, while increasing chances of catching a glitch.

Replies: Dominions Son Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@LupusDei

Even at current technology there's seems to be no principal reason why generation ships couldn't colonize the entire galaxy within few million years, assuming exponential expansion. All we need is enough commitment to start doing it.

I disagree. We don't have the technology to build a ship that would be sufficiently reliable over thousands of years without outside maintenance and resupply, which would be impossible in the scenario of using such ships for interstellar colonization.

Dominions Son 🚫

@LupusDei

If so, causality paradoxes is only thing limiting super-luminar travel

I have a thought on that. the causality paradoxes with FTL travel are strictly a product of Einstein's curved space in the general theory of relativity. Causality is a non-issue for FTL travel if space is flat.

However, there are several dualities in our current understanding of physics, the particle/wave thing being the most prominent.

What if the same sort of thing applies to curved/flat space?

Specifically, what if space is curved for anything traveling at or below light speed, but is effectively flat for anything traveling faster than light speed.

Replies: LupusDei

LupusDei 🚫
Updated:

@Dominions Son

I have a thought on that. the causality paradoxes with FTL travel are strictly a product of Einstein's curved space in the general theory of relativity. Causality is a non-issue for FTL travel if space is flat.

Um, no. The main problem with causality is time travel. And that any sort of FTL travel necessarily allows for "closed space-time trajectories" with is just a fancy way of saying, enter a time-loop paradox where your past actions are caused by your future actions.

Necessity to preserve linear causality doesn't prohibit any FTL in principle, just place much stricter limitations on it we would probably like. Then there's still possibility the whole requirement of linear causality is just prejudice.

Besides, our so far best shot at FTL travel, the warp drive, explicitly requires curved space, it work by curving space by the definition. Ditto for wormholes. (Btw, that's why high resolution gravitational wave research is exciting: it may potentially prove some black holes to be in fact wormholes, and if those are in any kind possible there's whole another ballgame.)

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@LupusDei

The main problem with causality is time travel. And that any sort of FTL travel necessarily allows for "closed space-time trajectories" with is just a fancy way of saying

From what I've read on it, that only applies in a curved space model.

Replies: Keet

Keet 🚫

@Dominions Son

From what I've read on it, that only applies in a curved space model.

Maybe we just have to figure out those 7 presumed dimensions above the four we know (x,y,z,time).

Replies: LupusDei

LupusDei 🚫

@Keet

Maybe we just have to figure out those 7 presumed dimensions above the four we know (x,y,z,time).

Yes, that has potential to make our one-dimensional time a three dimensional time-space on itself.

Replies: helmut_meukel

helmut_meukel 🚫

@LupusDei

Yes, that has potential to make our one-dimensional time a three dimensional time-space on itself.

3 space dimensions plus 3 time dimensions as in Heinlein's The Number of the Beast?

HM.

Remus2 🚫

@Grey Wolf

Perhaps I'm missing an inherent paradox, but I don't see one. Actual time travel - maybe, maybe not.

There is no maybe to it. The scenario starts at one point in time and ends at another. Progression of time. Rinse and repeat. Events are perceived by the MC during that day. The following day, those events will be in the mind of the MC. The new day events change. It shouldn't take much to pick up on a paradox from there.

Replies: Grey Wolf

Grey Wolf 🚫

@Remus2

Again, in a simulation, it's a reset with a state change in the mind of the MC. Time doesn't actually get manipulated. so there are no temporal paradoxes. Yes, the MC can progressively learn far more than would normally be possible; no, that's not a paradox.

And at the end of the scenario, the world has moved forward, but, again, there's no paradox. Yes, the MC has learned far more than would normally be possible, but that's not a paradox.

LupusDei 🚫
Updated:

@joyR

The whole argument is a bit like claiming that a pawn act illogically in a game of chess.

For reference: a pawn only moves forward, only one square at a time, directly forward on free squares or diagonally when removing an opponent piece, except very first move from the starting position when it can go two squares optionally, provided both are free; it becomes different figure if reach the opposite edge of the board. It is the only figure that has different moves for moving on free squares and engaging, all other pieces remove opponent pieces the same way they move.

It is a peculiar, one might claim arbitrary, set of rules even if we only consider a subset of chess-like games where pawns represent poorly trained spearman (or peasants with pitchforks, just as probably).

Or let's say, towers, they fire only in straight lines, that's okay they have limited number of potholes, but how on earth they move at all, isn't that absurd? Well, one might try to explain they're siege towers on wheels, maybe.

The point is, there's little hard logic to how the pieces move, but you would have hard time arguing that the gameplay itself is illogical.

It wouldn't be much to invent a version of battle chess where pawns can move sideways and towers don't move at all but provide indirect fire support according to completely new subset of rules. Gameplay of such game would be illogical in terms of classic chess, but completely logical within its own ruleset.

Something very similar happens here, in the time travel scenarios. We can catalogue and discuss their ruleset, or possible rule sets, and some of those can be completely arbitrary, but that doesn't mean there's no inner logic for the story within the applied ruleset.

Replies: joyR awnlee jawking Mushroom

joyR 🚫

@LupusDei

For reference: a pawn only moves... etc.

Ignoring the implication that the moves of a paw need explaining. Likening the topic to chess is utterly irrelevant. Unless of course you wish to use repeated games in which both players make the same moves over and over. In that case you might as well concede now.

:)

Replies: LupusDei Dominions Son

LupusDei 🚫
Updated:

@joyR

Unless of course you wish to use repeated games in which both players make the same moves over and over.

Actually... it's called openings. There's sequences of moves that would be repeated on almost automatic, with any sudden new change to the sequence worth a report in the press and the new variant then named after the grandmaster.

Well, the point is in likening the topic to a game in general. The argument that events within the game are illogical is made without examining the legitimately arbitrary assumptions under which the game is played.

Dominions Son 🚫

@joyR

Unless of course you wish to use repeated games in which both players make the same moves over and over.

Chess has a finite number of pieces each with a finite number of moves moving on a finite game board.

In short, there is a finite number of possible chess games.

If enough players play enough games, yes, they will repeat.

Replies: LupusDei palamedes joyR

LupusDei 🚫

@Dominions Son

I have read that chess masters use memory mechanism meant for recognizing faces to recognize chess board positions.

palamedes 🚫

@Dominions Son

hess has a finite number of pieces each with a finite number of moves moving on a finite game board.

In short, there is a finite number of possible chess games.

If enough players play enough games, yes, they will repeat.

As long as you take into account the 50-move rule and the draw by 3-fold repetition then there are only 10 to the 120 power possible games to play

(1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000).

Of course if you play against really bad players then it would take only need 3 moves if you played white or 2 moves for if you played black to Checkmate your opponent.

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@palamedes

While large, that is a finite number.

Replies: palamedes

palamedes 🚫

@Dominions Son

While large, that is a finite number.

True but that is only because of the added rules with out those rules then it would be infinite as there will be no forced ending just like finding the end of PI.

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@palamedes

True but that is only because of the added rules with out those rules then it would be infinite as there will be no forced ending just like finding the end of PI.

In theory maybe, in practice that will simply never happen in a real game even without the rule you mentioned.

Real human players won't keep going forever when a game reaches a stalemate with no solution.

joyR 🚫

@Dominions Son

If enough players play enough games, yes, they will repeat.

Either the actual topic is beyond you since your statement is utterly irrelevant or you are being purposefully obtuse. Hopefully the latter.

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@joyR

Either the actual topic is beyond you since your statement is utterly irrelevant

Chess in general is utterly irrelevant to the topic of the thread, and you are the one who introduced it.

Replies: joyR

joyR 🚫

@Dominions Son

Chess in general is utterly irrelevant to the topic of the thread, and you are the one who introduced it.

Nope. I think you'll find it was LupusDei.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@LupusDei

towers

For the possible benefit of other readers, since it took me a couple of reads to work it out, is 'tower' a literal translation of a non-English name for the 'castle' (or 'rook')?

AJ

Replies: LupusDei

LupusDei 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Yes.

Mushroom 🚫

@LupusDei

For reference: a pawn only moves forward, only one square at a time, directly forward on free squares or diagonally when removing an opponent piece, except very first move from the starting position when it can go two squares optionally, provided both are free; it becomes different figure if reach the opposite edge of the board. It is the only figure that has different moves for moving on free squares and engaging, all other pieces remove opponent pieces the same way they move.

You actually missed one. En passant is both a diagonal move to a free square, and a capture at the same time.

Replies: LupusDei

LupusDei 🚫

@Mushroom

Thanks, I indeed overlooked it.

And what a brilliant example to the point I was trying to make, a special case of a special case, the only move in the entire game where a figure doesn't stop in place of the figure just captured but merely could have been, something availability of what couldn't perhaps be deducted from the general principles naively, still having system to it, be "logical" when you look at it knowing.

richardshagrin 🚫

@joyR

It's been a long time since I was a Physics Major (1962 and for a while after that), but I recall that c, the speed of light is the upper limit on speed for things with mass. There are, or possibly were thought to be, things that had no mass and could be accelerated to more than light speed in a vacuum. The speed of light in (for instance) glass is lower than its speed in a vacuum. If the space that something is traveling through is filled with particles (matter), the speed of things like spaceships that are traveling through the non-vacuum is less than c.

Replies: Mushroom joyR

Mushroom 🚫

@richardshagrin

If the space that something is traveling through is filled with particles (matter), the speed of things like spaceships that are traveling through the non-vacuum is less than c.

But then you have strange things, like the speed of sound.

In the atmosphere, that is 340 meters per second. And the tiny difference through evolution of a sound hitting one ear drum before the other is what lets us know what direction a sound comes from.

Then go underwater, and the speed of sound is 1,500 meters per second. Which is a strange sensation at first, because a human is incapable of determining the direction of a sound under water. When we hear something (like another diver tapping on their tank with the but cap of their knife), we have to look all around us because we can not determine the direction by sound alone.

joyR 🚫

@richardshagrin

I recall that c, the speed of light is the upper limit on speed for things with mass.

Does that mean protestants go faster?

light speed in a vacuum

Wouldn't the dust being collected need to be allowed for?

If the space that something is traveling through is filled with particles

Ok, so yes it does. Good.

Question: If you are travelling just a little faster than light and you turn on your headlights, wouldn't their beam reach out behind you?

Replies: LupusDei

LupusDei 🚫

@joyR

Question: If you are travelling just a little faster than light and you turn on your headlights, wouldn't their beam reach out behind you?

Nope. In your frame of reference, nothing at all strange would happen, or shouldn't, from the ship's point of view the headlights would still shine forward, and with the same speed of light relative to the ships body. There's no "eater" no general grid of reference, any measurements of speed only make sense as expressed relative to a reference frame. There's no difference between standing still and going at whatever constant speed, in closed system (say, inside a box) there's no way to tell. The same with acceleration and gravity, there's no way to tell the difference.

Except, the speed of light. Where the craziness of relativity starts, the maximum speed of light in vacuum supposedly remain fixed constant for all observers, irrelevant to their reference frame. The only way to reconcile this, is to make flow of time flexible and local. As closer to speed of light you get, the slower the time is for you.

The same effects mean that in direct vicinity of massive objects time goes slower than far from any. And that is something measured extensively, for example, GPS system couldn't operate without adjustment for different speeds of time in orbit and on surface, as tiny the difference is.

Reply to topic

Forum: Author Hangout

Repeating Day Issues.

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...