Watch the Footage

All this aside, guys, there's gotta be a top layer SOMEWHERE, even if it's not us. I know it's kinda pointless to think about but... still, it's a curiosity.

There doesn't have to be a top layer... it could be circular. Maybe deep down below us, is the layer of fiction that gave birth to us.

Here are my thoughts, such as they are.

If we are the top layer, we have nested layers below ourselves, giving life to something. It puts us in a position of power, and makes us capable of great things... I am doubtful of this line of thought though, because its somehow centered around us being better than the rest of the universes, or greater in some way. We live on an average planet, which orbits an average star, centered around an average section of an average galaxy... If we were the creators of every fiction ever, I'd like to think we'd be less troubled, and well, boring ourselves.

If there is a layer above us, that means that someone somewhere thought that we were a story worth telling. There's something about us that is interesting, and worthy of attention. It also means that the author wants us to beat the odds and play in hard mode, putting us in a universe were the greatest threat to life is dying of boredom in an office cubicle, or of some disease brought on by laziness or overeating. it also means that the multi-verse isn't centered around us and our thoughts, though our world's creator saw it fit to let us explore and learn, directing us towards bigger things and greater discoveries.

if the multiverse is a circle, then we made those who made us, and we were created by our creations. This seems to be most fitting, as patterns repeat. Eco-systems run this way, the circle of life and all that. Because grass grows, we can live, and in turn we provide fuel for the grass after we're no longer here. As simplified as that is, our universe constantly repeats itself, in many varied ways. It would make sense that fiction (at least from our perspective) would reflect that.

Pixelmage wrote:Tom is the top layer author.

AHEM.

Dana wrote:

Pixelmage wrote:Tom is the top layer author.

AHEM.

Story Lead.
Title.
That's all, Dana. As Dilly pointed out, the verse is nearly fully populated by Author Avatars. I just choose the closest title. No offense meant.

Sorry.

Pixelmage wrote:

Dana wrote:

Pixelmage wrote:Tom is the top layer author.

AHEM.

Story Lead.
Title.
That's all, Dana. As Dilly pointed out, the verse is nearly fully populated by Author Avatars. I just choose the closest title. No offense meant.

Sorry.

No worries Twas but a joke.

[irrelevant pretentious garbage] [all from non-meta perspective]

I recently picked up the brilliant Labyrinths, by Jorge Luis Borges. Two stories:

1) Tlön, Uqbar, Orbius Tertius (don't laugh). My hypothesis is that Behind The Wall (BTW) is like Tlön; it has Berkelian idealism. What you perceive is the world. Do characters BTW live in their settings? This idea allows them too. Even more interestingly (up to a point), minor characters from stories must exist within the settings. But they also must have their own settings. Ths hypothess allows that to work. I suspect a universe of fictionals alone, with all their varied powers, acquaintances, and areas, is only possible with this. It explains why only those from Classics come over; they are better contrived characters in better and thus larger and more expansive settings, who can imagine more things - including the wall. But the reductio of this is further; the wall itself is fictional. It is imagined by characters who know no better. Once they imagine it, it is there. When some stop imagining, they may go. The 'pieces' are just a fraud conceived by Mr. Administrator. But why should Mr. A not be fictional as well? Why could it not be that his inconsistencies are because he is part of the 'collective unconscious' of humanity, as our psychiatrist's cats' namesake had it? He is the fallacy of Lady Sleepypants, and she is us. (I can't find the link). More will hopefully follow.

RANDOM THOUGHT:
This would clear up another problem I had: what do the characters do BTW? Options:
1) Nothing, they just potter about. (Then how can they know their plots up to a certain point, as they do?)
2) They carry out their plots. Then die. (How is, say, Anansi not therefore dead?)
3) They carry out their plots, die, rinse, wash, repeat. (Many characters - Moriarty - die in-story. The resurrection would require fiction added to the text, presumably by Mr. A. But I agree with Dilly he can't write fiction.)
4) They carry out plots veeeeerrrrrryyyyyy sloooooowwlllyyyy. (A: Just silly. B: Requires A to calibrate time = Writing fiction.)

Or...
In A New Refutation Of Time, Borges, well... Refutes time, for idealism. (I think. I don't really understand (not false modesty). That solves that problem nicely.

Uhm, long time no post here.

Though I figure that this being a Mindscrew thread, what I'm about to post should be here. Taking a hook from RVR's latest riddle (you can find my interpretation here), I'd like to remind you all of a silly and small combination of details.

The eye picture from the riddle was a result of RVR joining our #EyeOff. Now, take the time to appreciate that. We called it. In fact, I did. I was the first person to actually label it with that tag. As seen here: https://twitter.com/PixelmageLezard/sta ... 2602198016

The timeline is as follows. Rick twitted a picture of his eye. Scarab replied in the same manner. Eli and I were talking and agreed that if one of us sent an eye, the other would do the same. Eli twitted, and then I started the game. The chat went along and in the end everyone wound up joining and we had what we had.

Rick later did a repost to add the tag:
https://twitter.com/TwoToTheFifth/statu ... 8187351040

The question then is, did the GMs create the puzzle after we went crazy spamming pictures of our eyes? Or did Rick gambit our collective insanity into setting up for that RVR picture? Food for thought.

Rather than add to the screw (for once), I'm going to note that being able to be an effective storyteller requires three complimentary skills.

One is the ability to plan well in advance to set a grand design into motion.

Two is the ability to adapt on the fly to get to the result that you wanted.

Finally, three is to so seamlessly be able to switch between the two that nobody can tell which you did this time.

Sleight of hand is important, but so is effective scrounging.

Also, since I did promise a lack of further mind screw... technically, it was a combination of both. I first posted the eye pic out of pure vanity (I don't like much about my appearance, but I do like my eye color... shame they work poorly). When the puppetmasters decided to do an anniversary puzzle, it was really convenient that folks ran with the eye pics, as it'd be something that folks would notice. That said, we did prep a close-up pic of Mr. A's eye just in case we needed it for anything (creepy factor, major reveal, whatever). So we combined serendipity with previous preparation to produce something that we hope folks found fun.

Actually, that particular picture wasn't from a closeup of an eye! It was just a regular picture taken in a very high resolution. I was looking through the images we had of Mr A's actor and that one stood out because the eye was just so strange in that shot, so I made it greyscale, put it through some effects to make it look more like Mr A, and made it the eye we used in the puzzle.

I'll admit, I was feeling a little bit evil in the pupptermaster chat when I did this:

[17/09/2013 13:42:28] Sophie Hamilton: The best/worst part about this? Whoever decodes this will have to stare at an image of Mr A's eye.
[17/09/2013 13:42:48] Sophie Hamilton: Possibly having to zoom in.
[17/09/2013 13:42:49] Sophie Hamilton:

And then we extracted the pattern from the image, rendering that moot.

Not really. ALoneFox still had to stare at it for a week. (Sorry, ALoneFox! But your efforts were obviously very much appreciated. )

Rick Healey wrote: I first posted the eye pic out of pure vanity (I don't like much about my appearance, but I do like my eye color... shame they work poorly).

You have very pretty eyes, which Zoë clearly inherited. I don't think any of us would judge our own eyes on how well they work, I mean HOW many of us around here have glasses, exactly? Probably more than do not, that's for sure...

Scarab wrote:

Rick Healey wrote: I first posted the eye pic out of pure vanity (I don't like much about my appearance, but I do like my eye color... shame they work poorly).

You have very pretty eyes, which Zoë clearly inherited. I don't think any of us would judge our own eyes on how well they work, I mean HOW many of us around here have glasses, exactly? Probably more than do not, that's for sure...

Well, it remains to be seen if she keeps my eyes; a baby's eye color can change any time in the first 18 months, and her mother has greenish brown eyes. There's an array of colors that Zoë could end up with.

As for how well they work - mine are so bad that, I found out, that I'd be denied entry into the military even if I chose to go in. My right eye is the better one, and even that is at -9.5. I have met people with worse vision, but not too many.

Rick Healey wrote:

Scarab wrote:

Rick Healey wrote: I first posted the eye pic out of pure vanity (I don't like much about my appearance, but I do like my eye color... shame they work poorly).

You have very pretty eyes, which Zoë clearly inherited. I don't think any of us would judge our own eyes on how well they work, I mean HOW many of us around here have glasses, exactly? Probably more than do not, that's for sure...

Well, it remains to be seen if she keeps my eyes; a baby's eye color can change any time in the first 18 months, and her mother has greenish brown eyes. There's an array of colors that Zoë could end up with.

As for how well they work - mine are so bad that, I found out, that I'd be denied entry into the military even if I chose to go in. My right eye is the better one, and even that is at -9.5. I have met people with worse vision, but not too many.

I, with -13 and -11, beat nearly everybody I know in one-upmanship, apart from all of my relatives, hose are far worse. My father actually made it to the last stage of joining the RAF until they realised he couldn't actually see the plane he was flying.