Lenoxus Falls

The Rabbit's Foot Takes a Space Journey

2010-01-29T19:08:00.000-08:00

I tell my friend, "I have a lucky rabbit's foot."

She asks, "Lucky, huh? Does it help with gambling?"

"Yes, it should help while gambling — I don't see why not."

What I just failed to realize in that conversation is that I literally just said that if I use the rabbit's foot, I will experience a higher rate of favorable outcomes. I can't wriggle out of the fact that I just said that — "Rabbit's foot helping with gambling" is literally the same thing as "Rabbit's foot improving probability."

Yet many people think of that second claim (and testing it) as though it takes place in some other world: Planet Empirical Science, where everything is made out of test tubes and lab coats. During their trips to Planet Science, both scientists and laymen simply visit and extract the occasional bizarre idea, like "quantum thermodynamics", then import it to here in the Real World, which is made out of Everyday Experience. I mean, you don't actually believe that physicists "observe" all those super-tiny particles, right? That's like saying medieval theologians "observed" angels dancing on pins, right? In both cases, the claims are so "out there" that they must be made up, and therefore, why, we have the license to use those claims however we please.

So it is with homeopathic claims: they don't just say that it makes you feel better, but that it outperforms conventional medicine — and therefore, although they don't say it aloud, that it outperforms placebo. Additionally, if "water memory" were a "quantum" phenomenon, it would be empirically observable as such. That second part is perhaps even harder to grasp — I know I don't fully grasp it (perhaps the resources to actually test the "quantum water" claim would be greater than those devoted to the LHC, but in any case, it would still be ultimately testable).

Paradox of the Stone

2007-02-24T11:39:00.000-08:00

The classic: Can God make a stone he cannot lift? The following is copied from my same writing on this Wikipedia talkpage.

For me, much of the "stone" issue (and some related paradoxes) involves an interesting but unprovable assumption that I feel originates in our language more than anything else. The assumption is this: for every object X (such as a rock), there exists a sort of intangible "Who's Who" list of all the beings and entities able and unable to perform action Y (such as lifting) on X. This is to say, not only is it impossible for Koko the gorilla to lift Mount Augustus (sometimes considered the "world's biggest rock"), but Koko's inability is in itself a feature or aspect of Augustus, like its color, vegetation, and, of course, size.

To me, saying this is an easy trap to fall into, but still basically irrelevant (and if that's so, there is no paradox — God makes a mountain of however many tons he likes, then, being infinitely strong, lifts it — the "impossibility" having never been present "within" the mountain to begin with.) Has this confusion/objection been raised before, perhaps in different phrasing? And if so, how do those who contend that it is still a paradox respond? (Note that I still believe there are plenty of other inescapable omnipotence paradoxes — can God make a square triangle? But this one in particular strikes me for this reason). —Lenoxus 23:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

this political cherry goes pop

2007-01-23T19:08:00.000-08:00

(Being this blog's first commentary on United States politics)

Quick thoughts on the (at the moment rather recent) 2007 State of the Union:

Overall positives:

While in terms of intention, it was obviously barely more than a caclulated ploy, the use of four Americans (basketball player Dikembe Mutombo, "Baby Einstein" developer Julie Aigner-Clark, "Subway Superman" Wesley Autrey and soldier Tommy Rieman) as examples of the "spirirt and character of America" certainly provided additional deserved recognition, for the most part. I add this qualification because I'm a little iffy about the whole Baby Einstein concept, as it has lead many good-intentioned parents to think that television is appropriate for two-year-olds, despite the reccomendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

As for the other three, nothing but kudos galore, assuming none of them turn out someday to be entangled in some sort of Jessia Lynch* thing. But perhaps it's cynical of me to even allow the possibilty...

Anyway, I can't help but remark that Autrey is something of a character in addtion to being an unbelievably courageous person; he has stated something along the lones of saving a man's life being, you know, a great way to start the new year, and when Bush said "he insists he's not a hero", Autrey's reaction was smile-inducing, like that of a comedian laughing helplessly at his own roast.

Negatives: Well, as a registered Democrat, I'm perfectly aware of all the foibles and evils of this administration, and will try to skip over those (like, hey, wouldn't it be great if Bush and Cheney apologized and resigned on the spot? Then burst into hot ash?) in favor of some nitpicky points:

• Apparently we need a brand new civilian reserve corps, rather than an expansion of the one we already have. (The source of both would of course be the same corpse reanimation laboratories we used in Vietnam, hence the origin of the term "corps".) Someone explain this to me. Preferably in a way that doesn't result my anus shifting to "drafted" status.

• When giving background to Mutombo and his story, Bush failed to mention the athlete's hometown of Kinshasa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, instead saying he was born in the mysterious far-off land of "Africa". Oh, white people; when will we learn (myself included)?. Also, something about the way he said the word bothered me, but I can't put my finger on it, so I'll leave it that that.

• Once again, both my home state of PA and current residence of NC were snubbed for the prestigous title to which the Address's name obviously refers. The system is probably rigged.

• The Dub managed to keep The Smirk under control; however, when the applause got really serious (as after references to our troopes), he continued with that godawful post-applause "for me?" smile. No, sorry, that's only the sound of our near-unanimous support of the armed forces, in utter contrast to your every effort to harm and demoralize them. Good god, what's the point of writing at this point? Something, that's for sure. I'll know after a night's rest.

* Note that I still consider Lynch herself in high regard — the bruhaha with her is usually related to the question of whether the events leading to her capture and injuries were somehow "contrived" by the military, which I find implausible, given that such power could theoretically have been used instead to, you know, accompolish goals and earn good press for that. Granted, Lynch herself admits there was some exaggertation — only increasing my respect — but to a certain degree, that's what's to be expected in any war. Mayhap I'll take that idea back at some point...

More information on life in general can be found on the Internet.
(Scroll down to the "Mark Trail" one)

Top four requirements for a 21st-century ironic "fill-in-the-blanks"-style parody of any genre or area of culture riddled with cliches

2007-01-13T12:37:00.000-08:00

1. Be sure to point out the idiosyncratic characters/themes, and get to the bottom of what purpose these things serve. For example, you might ask why emo bands (always fun to hate) never carry out their seeming suicide plans. Trust me, no one has ever asked this before.

2. Devise a formula for the creation of silly-sounding names in the genre, using that "porn star name" thing as a model.

2. The Capitalization Of Every Word In A Description Indicates That The Phenomenon Described Is "Standard", Perhaps To The Point Of Being Somehow "Trademarked" ™

3. The facetious use of the word "obligatory" is obviously obligatory.

Thought for the era

2006-12-01T14:25:00.000-08:00

Under most circumstances, when you purchase music legitimately, the artist gets an inexcusably pathetic percentage in royalities, and there's no question that this state of affairs needs to be changed.

On the other hand, downloading it illegitimately for free gives the artist, well, 100% of the profits. Friggin' dilemma...

Stop SmirkingGlobal Warming

2006-04-24T14:54:00.000-07:00

I have no idea how you got here, but as long as I have your attention...
what are you waiting for?

OHNOwe'regonnacra

2006-04-23T19:07:00.000-07:00

Thangs are getting real screwy at this blog, I gotta sa

Strange Hampshire acceptance

2006-03-24T17:47:00.000-08:00

I just got accepted at Hampshire College and they gave me a weird jigsaw puzzle with a frog on it and an obscured frog legs recipe and I can't find this on Google or anywhere and its so frustrating!!! And exciting because Hampshire is quixotically tight!!! I will fix this later when my emtions fall into balance with my self-awareentce and spelling... spelling sense. yeah.

Rolling like Majolling!

2006-03-14T15:58:00.000-08:00

Things are rolling together. The total list of kinda-my-pages can be found here. And this is a relatively funny Wikipedia page.

The artist had two identical names... what're the odds?

2006-02-28T18:48:00.000-08:00

It's the first Google image hit for "Conversation piece." So . . . converse!

Vague Announcement

2006-01-16T13:56:00.000-08:00

Coming soon (within the next decade): some stuff I did in fifth grade, when I used to be creative. In the meantime, check this out.

By the way, have an inspiring MLK day! Pick up some litter or something.

Broken, Malnourished Facebook link

2005-11-22T22:30:00.000-08:00

Where's that picture from?

Seven points.

My number one test post

2005-11-09T19:23:00.000-08:00

This test post includes the following keywords: deliscious (sic) iced-creams.

Question: Which of these is the original? First correct answer gets you 5 points.

C'mon, it's easy, people!