Matt Smith leaving?

User avatar
greystone_06
 
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:26 pm
Contact:

Zarius wrote:
greystone_06 wrote:Bye Matt,

Good actor, cr*p Doctor.

Only an idiot tells anything less than personal truth.
Only an idiot says he was a cr*p Doctor.

How interesting. My remark was a personal reflection, yours was quite personal.

I suggest you watch some real Doctor Who and come back when you can do more than just throw mud.
#William Hartnell will always be the 1st Doctor. The Doctor is male.
User avatar
ReganMacNeilfan
 
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:08 am
Contact:

Matt IS REAL!!! :x

And sorry Liz i see my mistake on you know what. One more annoying you know what and its you know what. ;)
Demon: And I'm the Devil. Now kindly undo these straps.
Norman Bates: 'Cause I don't wanna get messed up with the police. I can't explain it to you. Maybe you're right, maybe this is real... but finding out what happened to this girl isn't gonna make a difference to anyone. She's still gonna be dead, and you're still gonna be sick... and I'm still gonna be who I am.
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20945
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

ReganMacNeilfan wrote:Matt IS REAL!!! :x

And sorry Liz i see my mistake on you know what. One more annoying you know what and its you know what. ;)
"Ooh, yes, I know...."
(to quote the divine Sybil Fawlty)
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20945
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

OptikaNET wrote:I was referring to the comment made by her character, Delenn, in "Babylon Five" that sentient life is the Universe's attempt to understand itself...
Oh, that. Not original with B5 I'm afraid. But it does indicate the views of a philosopher who puts mind as primary (like Descartes) so that answers my question, and places her in pole position in the famous MIND-MATTER-MATHS triangle.

What is mind?
Doesn't matter.
What is matter?
Never mind.

....but maths, however, just keeps on going. You might change the laws of gravity or the speed of light or even thermodynamics, but 1+1=2 at all times, in all places, in all universes.
User avatar
OptikaNET
 
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:48 am
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

LizR wrote:
OptikaNET wrote:I was referring to the comment made by her character, Delenn, in "Babylon Five" that sentient life is the Universe's attempt to understand itself...
Oh, that. Not original with B5 I'm afraid. But it does indicate the views of a philosopher who puts mind as primary (like Descartes) so that answers my question, and places her in pole position in the famous MIND-MATTER-MATHS triangle.

What is mind?
Doesn't matter.
What is matter?
Never mind.

....but maths, however, just keeps on going. You might change the laws of gravity or the speed of light or even thermodynamics, but 1+1=2 at all times, in all places, in all universes.
Really? You seem very sure about that, but there are lots of physicists who expect that the universal "constants" that underpin our universe may be different in other universes. There may be a universe out there where pi = 4, where the Planck constant is different, where e has a different value.

Given these fundemantal changes in the structure of those universes, how can you be sure that 1 + 1 would equal 2 in them?

Kind Regards
Dave
User avatar
OptikaNET
 
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:48 am
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

...And that's without getting into the strong-anthropic arguments that mathematics is a human construct, or the semi-Sheldrake territory of thinking that maths works because we believe it does!!! After all, without encountering another intelligence and comparing notes, we have no way of independantly verifying it.

And physics assumes that the universe follows the same rules throughout, no matter where you look; which is a necessary assumption for the science of cosmology to progress, but it's still an untested assumption. And with us constantly having to "multiply our entities" to create things like "Dark Matter", "Dark Energy" and "Dark Flow" to explain things we can see that don't follow the maths, it's not unreasonable to spare a bit of thought for a universe which follows different rules in different areas. Modified Newtonian Gravity is already treading that territory...

Kind Regards
Dave
chap with wings
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 3651
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Colwyn Bay, North Wales
Contact:

Zarius wrote:
greystone_06 wrote:Bye Matt,

Good actor, cr*p Doctor.

Only an idiot tells anything less than personal truth.
Only an idiot says he was a cr*p Doctor.
I am most definitely NOT an idiot, and I think he was a "potential franchise killing disaster" level of awful.

It's all down to personal taste.
"It can become a kind of franchise where it's not a real character at all, but just an amalgam of elements that people think are Doctor Who: a scarf, a bow tie... I wanted to be the actual Doctor Who." - Peter Capaldi

Follow me on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/BlogFinish

My Big Finish Review Archive is here - http://blogfinishplanetmondas.blogspot.co.uk/
User avatar
The Nimon
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 8236
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:24 am
Contact:

chap with wings wrote:
Zarius wrote:
greystone_06 wrote:Bye Matt,

Good actor, cr*p Doctor.

Only an idiot tells anything less than personal truth.
Only an idiot says he was a cr*p Doctor.
I am most definitely NOT an idiot, and I think he was a "potential franchise killing disaster" level of awful.

It's all down to personal taste.
Careful, I got told off for saying that ;)
The Judge Judy of Planet Mondax
chap with wings
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 3651
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Colwyn Bay, North Wales
Contact:

Who told you off?
"It can become a kind of franchise where it's not a real character at all, but just an amalgam of elements that people think are Doctor Who: a scarf, a bow tie... I wanted to be the actual Doctor Who." - Peter Capaldi

Follow me on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/BlogFinish

My Big Finish Review Archive is here - http://blogfinishplanetmondas.blogspot.co.uk/
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20945
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

OptikaNET wrote:
LizR wrote:
OptikaNET wrote:I was referring to the comment made by her character, Delenn, in "Babylon Five" that sentient life is the Universe's attempt to understand itself...
Oh, that. Not original with B5 I'm afraid. But it does indicate the views of a philosopher who puts mind as primary (like Descartes) so that answers my question, and places her in pole position in the famous MIND-MATTER-MATHS triangle.

What is mind?
Doesn't matter.
What is matter?
Never mind.

....but maths, however, just keeps on going. You might change the laws of gravity or the speed of light or even thermodynamics, but 1+1=2 at all times, in all places, in all universes.
Really? You seem very sure about that, but there are lots of physicists who expect that the universal "constants" that underpin our universe may be different in other universes. There may be a universe out there where pi = 4, where the Planck constant is different, where e has a different value.

Given these fundemantal changes in the structure of those universes, how can you be sure that 1 + 1 would equal 2 in them?
Careful. You're mixing up constants of nature with mathematical constants. (You said "But" above, as though contradicting me, but then you just repeated what I'd already said about constants varying in other universes.) The existence of universes with different physical constants has no bearing on maths. There cannot be a universe in which pi = 4, because pi is the sum of various series', not a measured value. To take a random example

Image

Neither can e change. But Planck's constant can, of course.

I'm not wedded to this view (which is known in the trade as Arithmetical Realism) but it will take some heavyweight arguments to convince me that it's wrong. I discuss this sort of thing with real physicists and philosophers (and real nutters, of course) on http://groups.google.com/group/foarso I am aware of the arguments pro and con, and the existence of other universes with different physical constants has no bearing on the possibility of variations in fundamental constants like pi and e (or 1 and 2).

"2+2=5, for large value of 2" -- O'Brien, "1984".
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20945
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

OptikaNET wrote:...And that's without getting into the strong-anthropic arguments that mathematics is a human construct, or the semi-Sheldrake territory of thinking that maths works because we believe it does!!! After all, without encountering another intelligence and comparing notes, we have no way of independantly verifying it.
The answer to this is also the answer to the next paragraph, but to add a couple of extra observations to the discussion below, (a) mathematicians almost universally believe that they discover maths, rather than invent it. That's because it "kicks back" - doesn't just easily fit their preconceptions. For example, if they invent it, why didn't they just solve the 4-colour problem or the Goldbach conjecture or Fermat's last theorem by making up an answer? Why were they so put out be Godel's theorem showing no sufficiently rich system of arithmetic can be complete or consistent (or whatever it showed) if it's all just invented? The simple answer: because it isn't. It's "out there" in some real sense, even if it isn't soemthing we can see or touch.

And (b) why does maths work so darn well in the physical sciences, if it's "just a human invention" ?
OptikaNET wrote:And physics assumes that the universe follows the same rules throughout, no matter where you look; which is a necessary assumption for the science of cosmology to progress, but it's still an untested assumption. And with us constantly having to "multiply our entities" to create things like "Dark Matter", "Dark Energy" and "Dark Flow" to explain things we can see that don't follow the maths, it's not unreasonable to spare a bit of thought for a universe which follows different rules in different areas. Modified Newtonian Gravity is already treading that territory...
That just isn't true. We can see that physics works the same way in other parts of the universe by looking at distant objects. For example we can work out what stars are made of by using spectroscopes, which work because the laws of physics are the same inside stars as they are on Earth. It is a very well tested assumption, all astronomcal observations to date have tested it, a point which is illustrated by the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which required incredibly careful measurements of distant objects. This was an unexpected result, no one set out to prove it, and indeed they checked their results very carefully before publication because they could hardly believe them! If science was a tower of cards based on our own assumptions - i.e what we'd like to be true - we'd never find unexpected stuff like that.

We don't "constantly" have to multiply entities, either. Dark matter was discovered in 1933, dark energy in about 1995. That's 2 unobserved entities postulated over the course of a century in a rather large universe. If that's the only things we don't know about we're doing rather well. (Dark flow is not an entity, by the way, they just got used to using "Dark" for everything. It's a possible irregularity in the uniformity of the expansion of the universe.)

Modified Newtonian gravity has a LONG way to go before it has the explanatory power of general relativity. It's a completely ad hoc revision with no justification except to fit observations without postulating dark matter. But there's no reason why all the components of the universe SHOULD interact with light (dark matter is better called invisible matter).

More generally, Emmy Noether explained very well why we should expect the laws of physics not to change across time and space due to symmetry considerations, and observation backs this up, because if the laws of physics DID change that would create gradients in the universe which would be able to do work. (This is exactly what dark energy seems to be doing - pushing the universe to expand faster. Since DE is thought to only be effective in large matterless voids, it's effectively a "change" in the laws of physics in some regions, and it has a visible effect. We'd expect that if say c varied in different areas, that would also cause visible changes).

Maths and physics only appear to leave large explanatory gaps if one is desperate for them to do so, perhaps for religious reasons. To most scientists they appear to be doing a damn fine job of explaining 99% of the universe, and closing in on the other 1%.

If you really want to find real gaps in our knowledge, you'd do far better to forget the "Einstein was wrong and I can prove it!" crowd and instead talk about consciousness. See http://thecrazystuff.wordpress.com/ for further discussion of this interesting and by no means settled topic.
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20945
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

chap with wings wrote:I am most definitely NOT an idiot, and I think he was a "potential franchise killing disaster" level of awful.
I hope you notice that I also said this (about you not being an idiot, and not liking the Matt Smith era).
chap with wings wrote:It's all down to personal taste.
To some extent, but there are some objective criteria too. Very few people liked "Rings of Akhaten" (or whatever it was called) because it didn't follow the rules of a good narrative, it involved too much talking, and it employed some extremely old cliches. Obviously a few people liked it despite those flaws, but it's fair to say they are flaws.

I agree that TV appreciation isn't an exact science but I still contend you can say something definite about a TV programme, otherwise why bother to have a "Doctor Who discussion forum" ?
User avatar
The Nimon
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 8236
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 9:24 am
Contact:

chap with wings wrote:Who told you off?
I'm not mentioning names, i'm still scared of her ;)
The Judge Judy of Planet Mondax
User avatar
greystone_06
 
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:26 pm
Contact:

The Nimon wrote:
chap with wings wrote:Who told you off?
I'm not mentioning names, i'm still scared of her ;)
:floorroll:
#William Hartnell will always be the 1st Doctor. The Doctor is male.
User avatar
greystone_06
 
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:26 pm
Contact:

chap with wings wrote:
Zarius wrote:
greystone_06 wrote:Bye Matt,

Good actor, cr*p Doctor.

Only an idiot tells anything less than personal truth.
Only an idiot says he was a cr*p Doctor.
I am most definitely NOT an idiot, and I think he was a "potential franchise killing disaster" level of awful.

It's all down to personal taste.
Very eloquently put Chap.
#William Hartnell will always be the 1st Doctor. The Doctor is male.
User avatar
greystone_06
 
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:26 pm
Contact:

ReganMacNeilfan wrote:Matt IS REAL!!! :x
:floorroll:
#William Hartnell will always be the 1st Doctor. The Doctor is male.
User avatar
greystone_06
 
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:26 pm
Contact:

LizR wrote:
chap with wings wrote:I am most definitely NOT an idiot, and I think he was a "potential franchise killing disaster" level of awful.
I hope you notice that I also said this (about you not being an idiot, and not liking the Matt Smith era).
chap with wings wrote:It's all down to personal taste.
To some extent, but there are some objective criteria too. Very few people liked "Rings of Akhaten" (or whatever it was called) because it didn't follow the rules of a good narrative, it involved too much talking, and it employed some extremely old cliches. Obviously a few people liked it despite those flaws, but it's fair to say they are flaws.

I agree that TV appreciation isn't an exact science but I still contend you can say something definite about a TV programme, otherwise why bother to have a "Doctor Who discussion forum" ?
With you all the way.
#William Hartnell will always be the 1st Doctor. The Doctor is male.
User avatar
greystone_06
 
 
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:26 pm
Contact:

Hmmm, I feel the need to explain the 'only an idiot tells anything less than personal truth' remark. It doesn't actually mean that if you like Matt Smith you are an idiot. It simply means that you are an idiot unless your comment is absolutely true of your opinion, if it isn't it isn't worth expressing.

I.E. back in the 80's there was a faction of people who praised anything WHO for fear of any hint of criticism would surely doom the programe. To me that is not a personal truth, and I have no time for this attitude. If the thing is that bad it doesn't deserve to survive and that sums up the Matt Smith era for me.

Smith was woefully miscast by Moffat in my opinion. I've always loved the Doctor's eccentricity for instance, but in someone as young as Smith it is just irritating and I found myself totally at odds with the lead character.

I'm all in favor of the new casting but still uneasy as Moffat is still in charge. People say Dr who can be anything... I don't agree. The premise of WHO is very broad indeed, but in many ways it also demands respect. Respect I feel Moffat has not given it.
#William Hartnell will always be the 1st Doctor. The Doctor is male.
User avatar
ReganMacNeilfan
 
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 1:08 am
Contact:

To me Matt was best in series 5. Then the seasons went down hill after words. :(
Demon: And I'm the Devil. Now kindly undo these straps.
Norman Bates: 'Cause I don't wanna get messed up with the police. I can't explain it to you. Maybe you're right, maybe this is real... but finding out what happened to this girl isn't gonna make a difference to anyone. She's still gonna be dead, and you're still gonna be sick... and I'm still gonna be who I am.
User avatar
LizR
Irony Maiden
Irony Maiden
Posts: 20945
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:01 am
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

greystone_06 wrote:I'm all in favor of the new casting but still uneasy as Moffat is still in charge. People say Dr who can be anything... I don't agree. The premise of WHO is very broad indeed, but in many ways it also demands respect. Respect I feel Moffat has not given it.
Quoted for truth. Especially the last sentence.
Post Reply

Return to “The Smith Era”

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests