complex humor and simple humor
Complex Humor:Yesterday, I was reading a dissertation about how to model the interpretation of modals (i.e. can, might) together with tense (i.e. past, present).
In a sentence such as "I might make soup for dinner, or I might make a sandwich," the speaker is entertaining at least two different ways that the future will end up: one soup-for-dinner future and one sandwich-for-dinner future. Even before the future unfolds, one can reason about each of these distinct possible futures. In the sandwich-for-dinner future, the speaker must have bread. In other words, the sandwich-for-dinner future entails more than just making a sandwich. It entails that the future is set up in a way that facilitates making a sandwich. Semanticists like to call that a possible world, meaning a complete state of affairs that the world could end up like, a complete state of affairs that allows you to reason about that world in the same way we can reason about the present world.
Okay, just as we entertain possible ways that the future can end up, we also entertain possible ways that the present is. No one knows everything about the present state of affairs. I don't know what my sister is doing right now. (Hating work?) So I can say, "My sister might be sleeping, and she might be working." Each of these different presents entail a different state of affairs. (e.g. In a sleeping-sister state of affairs, i.e. world, my sister is also drooling.) So you might say that not only can we entertain different possible future worlds, but we entertain different, possible present worlds. And we don't worry that we can't narrow down which state of affairs is THE actual world that we live on. With that background in place, I read the following from the thesis. It's a good exposition of the theory, but I laughed at how schizophrenic it sounds. I swear that this quote reads like an acid trip. That said, I totally agree with this model of how humans perceive reality in time.From my present perspective, I actually belong to multiple worlds, all identical up to this moment. Yesterday at the same time, I belonged to multiple worlds, all identical up to that moment. Every world I am in presently is also a world I was in yesterday, but there are worlds I was in yesterday that I am no longer in today. As I move forward in time, worlds are constantly falling by the wayside, as determined by events that might have happened in the worlds I am in, but did not. [Jam tomorrow. Jam yesterday. But never, ever jam today!]
Simple Humor: this video of mice in a stationary wheel made me laugh. Especially the frantic spinning at 0:50. I think I prefer the simple humor. ;-)
In a sentence such as "I might make soup for dinner, or I might make a sandwich," the speaker is entertaining at least two different ways that the future will end up: one soup-for-dinner future and one sandwich-for-dinner future. Even before the future unfolds, one can reason about each of these distinct possible futures. In the sandwich-for-dinner future, the speaker must have bread. In other words, the sandwich-for-dinner future entails more than just making a sandwich. It entails that the future is set up in a way that facilitates making a sandwich. Semanticists like to call that a possible world, meaning a complete state of affairs that the world could end up like, a complete state of affairs that allows you to reason about that world in the same way we can reason about the present world.
Okay, just as we entertain possible ways that the future can end up, we also entertain possible ways that the present is. No one knows everything about the present state of affairs. I don't know what my sister is doing right now. (Hating work?) So I can say, "My sister might be sleeping, and she might be working." Each of these different presents entail a different state of affairs. (e.g. In a sleeping-sister state of affairs, i.e. world, my sister is also drooling.) So you might say that not only can we entertain different possible future worlds, but we entertain different, possible present worlds. And we don't worry that we can't narrow down which state of affairs is THE actual world that we live on. With that background in place, I read the following from the thesis. It's a good exposition of the theory, but I laughed at how schizophrenic it sounds. I swear that this quote reads like an acid trip. That said, I totally agree with this model of how humans perceive reality in time.From my present perspective, I actually belong to multiple worlds, all identical up to this moment. Yesterday at the same time, I belonged to multiple worlds, all identical up to that moment. Every world I am in presently is also a world I was in yesterday, but there are worlds I was in yesterday that I am no longer in today. As I move forward in time, worlds are constantly falling by the wayside, as determined by events that might have happened in the worlds I am in, but did not. [Jam tomorrow. Jam yesterday. But never, ever jam today!]
Simple Humor: this video of mice in a stationary wheel made me laugh. Especially the frantic spinning at 0:50. I think I prefer the simple humor. ;-)