Doctor Who [4]

I'm back home on dial-up service, attempting to buffer in a different tab. So far I'm 21 seconds into it but nothing significant yet.

Im not sure quantum physics is really necessary to understand the plot in a show about a man in a magic box but I love a good discussion.

Fair enough. Still, they sometimes play classic Who on PBS educational channels on the pretext that there is a foundation of valid history and science under all the aliens and cliffhangers. Wasn't that even the BBC's original intention with the series? So a little detour in to Causuality Theory seems very much in keeping with the spirit of Who, don't you think?

Besides, I think you'll like this one!

I am all for any excuse for some science.

Who's science and education premise didnt last beyond the first series or so. It never survived the 'bug-eyed aliens' turning up.
Its not really a sci-fi show more a sci-fantasy show.
Science has never been more than a plot excuse for magic suff really.

The 3rd Doctor, Pertwee, famously resolved almost every techno babble situation by 'reversing the polarity of the neutron flow'- as he hated techno dialogue and that was the only one he could ever remember. So it became the solution to any techno stuff.

If you are having a hard time buffering the above vid David skip to 1.36- that will miss out all the whimsy and set up and cut to the meat.

Thanks Petty. I'll give it another try this evening.

Intresting almost trend happening in Who AI ratings (appreciation index)
This weeks got anoter 85. The average for series 7B so far is 85.

Series 7A by contrast averaged 87 and saw Smith be the first Doctor in Nuwho to go on an unbroken run of 10 epiosdes in row all getting above 7 million viewers. Not even Tennant managed that at the height of his popularity.

So if the 2 point drop is a trend- whats changed between series?
The most obvious thing is the departure of the Ponds- are the audience missing them?
I have to admit I am, and when the Doctor said to the salvagers as he descrbed Clara, 'about this tall...fiesty' I thought of Amy first and thought that description wasnt as well suited to Clara.

Is a two point difference statistically significant, though? I ask because I don't know how the Who AI ratings are calculated.

I'm not surprised that you miss Amy, though.

All statistics are relevant to Whovians- the bastards at the top justified dumping Who in the first place on ratings figures and the like (they made sure of this by putting it up against the top rated soap in the country, Coronation Street, and on a weeknight instead of its traditional Saturday night slot) so there is a certain paranoia at the weekly figures. And a lot of distrust in the BBC still.

You can tell something from AI ratings- which simply measure how a sample audience enjoyed the episode- no run of 4 episodes in row since S2 has got less than 86. (The lowest score was 73 for Love and Monsters- and I dont blame the audience there- although 73 is generous).
S7b has got four 85's.
I dont think 7a got less than 86 for an episode and averaged 87.
So although the change is minor- it is there.

I get that statistics matter, but whether minor changes in figures meet the definition of statistical significance is a different question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance

I'm not saying that people should or do analyze TV ratings with that much academic rigor, but a 2 percentage point drop in average ratings doesn't seem like that much cause for concern. And if 7A never scored under 86 but averaged 87 then there can't have been many episodes that scored significantly higher, so getting four 85s really doesn't seem like a big change from the status quo to me.

I did mention the bit where Whovans are paranoid about figures didn't I?
(This topic is a 15 page argument on Gallifrey Base and growing)

I think we can disregard the opinion of anyone who contributes to an 'appreciation index' for a TV show.

http://www.digitalspy.com.au/british-tv/s7/doctor-who/news/a477314/doctor-who-new-episode-the-crimson-horror-in-pictures.html

Just lost a long post

Here's the short version:
I was able to buffer and listen to most of the explanation. Even more questions!

The big one is that Amy says that Rory hardly remembers being a Roman soldier for 2000 years, but he does remember! So are you sure he isn't still plastic? Why else would he retain those memories of a plastic soldier?

It raises the bigger question I was trying to find a way to get at earlier, regarding continuity and causality.

What exactly does it mean to "BE" in the Who world?

For example why is current Rory considered to "be" plastic soldier Rory, who is in turn considered to "be" suckedthroughcrack Rory, when Angel Bob who has continuous memories, including the pain of his own death, not considered to "be" soldier Bob?

It's clearly not about the continuity of the physical bodies. Rory's body has nothing at all to do with his old one that ceased to "be".

It's seems not to be about memories, which are messed up and ever-changing.

It seems not to be a physical manifestation of a Buddhist Oneness of "Being", or there wouldn't be all the horror of people being killed.

It does however seem to be something that can be created from pure memory, as in the case of the Doctor.

That would seem to suggest that the Who World is following the rules of a hallucinatory dream. I guess that's OK, but I'd hoped for more.

i finally got to see last ep, but i didn't really understand what actually happened at the end, why did it work? wouldn't it just.. idk, loop itself?

Just ignore everything that has to do with the Ponds. Hopefully we'll never have to hear about them again. Amy is such a Mary Sue character.

what, there wasn't anything about the ponds (except the small glimpses)
but what actually happened?! he went back and? why did it work?

Yeah sorry, was talking to Dave {{{and giving a stab at Petty's Amy obsession}}}

It worked because (I guess we are still in spoiler mode)

Spoiler:

oh, cause it made no sense. like.. it should just redo..idk.. i guess that's time traveling in a nutshell.

why did it work? wouldn't it just.. idk, loop itself- Norc

Spoiler:

Dave I really think you are reading into to it more than is necessary- Rory is Rory- he got killed, brought back as a plastic Roman, rebooted as he was before- but he has memories of all the varous events same way Amy has memories of two childhoods that conradict- and yet its 'fine'.
Neither childhood is hallucenatory- they are both equally real.

In Hide the professor protests that 'Time Travel is impossible because the paradoxes.."
The Doctor finished for him by saying, 'largely resolve themselves.'

This has always been the case in Who including Classic Who.

so i have a question
before regeneration does the doctors heart stop

That would depend on what kills him CC- but yes his heart could stop and that be the reason for a regeneration.

But regeneration is different every time, sometimes it happens quickly if the cause is severe and sometimes it happens slowly (like with Tennant who had enough time to go on a farewell tour), and sometimes it happens weirdly (like when the 4th's future self had been stalking him for 2 episodes and merged with him at the moment of death).

I think you may have slightly misunderstood the question there...

What was it then? (and I was assuming by heart you meant both- as he can survive on 1 heart, but he really doesnt like it)

During the process of regeneration (ignoring any injury that may trigger regeneration) does the doctor's hearts stop and the new incarnation posesses the same hearts OR (presuming the regeneration wasn't triggered by the stopping of the heart) does the heart continue to function normally during the transition OR is the new incarnation blessed with a brand new hearts, i.e hearts that the previous incarnation did not have?