your brain doesn’t do maths to figure out how to move yourself or how to throw things, it just learned/knows which neurons to fire to move different parts of your body and has an impression of how much force must be applied to do different types of physical work. (e.g move through fluid)
True. But our bones do some of the calculations as well. We’re born with kinematics. Contrast with a video game that needs to do a lot of IK math to simulate bones.
And our neurons are doing a lot of calculations … just a different way.
But yeah, nobody is doing that Sherlock Holmes fight club stuff in their heads.
Alright, here are the official stats: getting perfectly clean gives you the buff Cleanliness IV for 1 hour, which then degrades to Cleanliness III for 3 hours, to Cleanliness II for 8 hours, followed by Cleanliness I for 12 hours.
The time runs at a base rate of 1 hour per hour, but your environment may lead to the rate accelerating or decreasing. For instance, being out in the hot sun may lead to sweating which increases the rate to 1.25-4 hours per hour depending on how hot it is and your passive constitution score and buffs. Being in a perfectly air conditioned, filtered environment could reduce the rate as low as .5 hours per hour.
There can also be instant hits to the timer. For instance, being hit by a thimble of mud may take off 10 minutes at once, slathering it to to cover more skin will take off a larger chunk from the timer.
I agree so much with this. We can use math to describe what you are doing when you throw a ball, that doesn’t mean you are doing the math calculations when you throw it.
We can use math to calculate all sorts of things, doesn’t mean those things themselves are doing math to decide how to do them. Waves, the moon’s orbit, all kinds of natural systems we can use math to describe, but they aren’t doing math.
That’s philosophical.
Are our neurons, are waves etc. not just a system that directly ‘perform’ maths without ‘doing’ maths? Math can be seen as a language for us to describe, explore and predict stuff. But you could equivalently say that the math is already there and we just discover it and put it into words.
That relates to the question whether math is discovered or invented. The one is an act of uncovering universal and natural truths, the other a rather creative process of bringing something new into a universe where it isn’t naturally found.
But that’s the catch. We wouldn’t say that, for example, coffe machines are discovered, they are not found in nature. (If they would, that would be quite a headline to wake up to.) They are clearly invented. Math however builds upon a fundament of provable truths. Of stuff that is already there and can be found in nature. So while we might argue that at least some parts of math may be invented (just like the coffee machine that operates on physical principles that exist elsewhere in nature with respect to their components), isn’t the fundament of math itself rather discovered? We just put into words and symbols, what is already there and uncover the hidden mechanisms.
I am not a mathematician, but have heard somewhere that it is already quite an effort to prove why our numbers make sense or why 1+1 can equal 2. And while we certainly do not need to tie math to an observable physical reality, we derived fundamental working principles from it, don’t we?
your brain doesn’t do maths to figure out how to move yourself or how to throw things, it just learned/knows which neurons to fire to move different parts of your body and has an impression of how much force must be applied to do different types of physical work. (e.g move through fluid)
True. But our bones do some of the calculations as well. We’re born with kinematics. Contrast with a video game that needs to do a lot of IK math to simulate bones.
And our neurons are doing a lot of calculations … just a different way.
But yeah, nobody is doing that Sherlock Holmes fight club stuff in their heads.
I do, but only when i shower.
"One bar of soap to the left arm. Top. Bottom. Clean: 12 hours "
Might start doing this technique to be fair
That’s more than 12 hours of clean in my book though, if i may say
I wonder, do the Clean buffs stack? Or are you a percent clean?
Definitely doesn’t stack because i feel like if i overclean i get dirtier quicker. What’s so unfair about this is that the dirty debuff stacks.
So yeah, there’s a percent clean and when you get over 100% you’re in raw skin territory. Microbiome extinction.
Alright, here are the official stats: getting perfectly clean gives you the buff Cleanliness IV for 1 hour, which then degrades to Cleanliness III for 3 hours, to Cleanliness II for 8 hours, followed by Cleanliness I for 12 hours.
The time runs at a base rate of 1 hour per hour, but your environment may lead to the rate accelerating or decreasing. For instance, being out in the hot sun may lead to sweating which increases the rate to 1.25-4 hours per hour depending on how hot it is and your passive constitution score and buffs. Being in a perfectly air conditioned, filtered environment could reduce the rate as low as .5 hours per hour.
There can also be instant hits to the timer. For instance, being hit by a thimble of mud may take off 10 minutes at once, slathering it to to cover more skin will take off a larger chunk from the timer.
I miss when games were simpler…
I agree so much with this. We can use math to describe what you are doing when you throw a ball, that doesn’t mean you are doing the math calculations when you throw it.
We can use math to calculate all sorts of things, doesn’t mean those things themselves are doing math to decide how to do them. Waves, the moon’s orbit, all kinds of natural systems we can use math to describe, but they aren’t doing math.
That’s philosophical.
Are our neurons, are waves etc. not just a system that directly ‘perform’ maths without ‘doing’ maths? Math can be seen as a language for us to describe, explore and predict stuff. But you could equivalently say that the math is already there and we just discover it and put it into words.
That relates to the question whether math is discovered or invented. The one is an act of uncovering universal and natural truths, the other a rather creative process of bringing something new into a universe where it isn’t naturally found.
But that’s the catch. We wouldn’t say that, for example, coffe machines are discovered, they are not found in nature. (If they would, that would be quite a headline to wake up to.) They are clearly invented. Math however builds upon a fundament of provable truths. Of stuff that is already there and can be found in nature. So while we might argue that at least some parts of math may be invented (just like the coffee machine that operates on physical principles that exist elsewhere in nature with respect to their components), isn’t the fundament of math itself rather discovered? We just put into words and symbols, what is already there and uncover the hidden mechanisms.
I am not a mathematician, but have heard somewhere that it is already quite an effort to prove why our numbers make sense or why 1+1 can equal 2. And while we certainly do not need to tie math to an observable physical reality, we derived fundamental working principles from it, don’t we?