Podcasting, Pseudo Mathematics, Gamma Ray Bursts and Roger Rabbit.

2010-11-28T12:28:00.000-08:00

For those who haven't heard it (or of it), WTF is a biweekly podcast hosted by comedian and professional narcissist Marc Maron. Whether you think Maron is funny or just annoying is a matter of opinion and both view points are perfectly valid (I think he's one of the funniest people working in comedy today). Whatever your view of him is, Maron has been providing the most honest and raw interviews that can be found online. Over the 150 some episodes he has gotten Carlos Mencia to all but admit to stealing jokes, made Dane Cooke look like a sympathetic character, let us into the brilliant comedic mind of Louis C.K. all the while dealing with his second divorce, sobriety and searching for the answer of mans greatest question: What the fuck?

Charles Fleischer was on a recent episode and while I was somewhat familiar with his comedy and his work as a voice actor I was unaware of his metaphysical and scientific views. For those who don't know, much of Fleischer's comedy is based on his theory of "Moleeds", which is a numerology based on the number 37:

"All things are Moleeds.
Moleeds are based on the numbers 27 and 37.
Because one divided by 27 equals point 037...
Conversely one divided by 37 equals point 027...
It is on this reciprocal relationship between the numbers 27 and 37 that all things in the universe and therefore Moleeds are based."

Of course, this theory was proposed during a comedy act so nobody took it seriously.
Except for Fleischer.
Indeed, Fleischer has not only used his theory of Moleeds in his art and comedy but also in his proof that "gamma-ray bursts are not random". The proof is quite short and apparently he has some of his fans convinced of its truth. It can be seen here:
http://www.myspace.com/universetoy/blog/355262058
The astute reader should notice that the 'proof' fails in its first line by presuming that the randomness of an event causes the property of randomness predicates itself on the event itself. Supposing on a time and spatial graph we have a number of points, x, that are distributed randomly. The randomness, if we're to call it that, is specific to the event of x and not x itself. Suppose rather than Gamma Ray Bursts x means 'a chair appears in an empty room'. There is no pretext to this event nor pattern, scientists have simply been watching this chair appear and disappear randomly.What is random about this event is its actual happening and not the chair itself: we say 'a chair randomly appears' not 'a random chair appears randomly'.That the chair appears randomly does not mean the chair itself is random.

Discrediting a proof proposed by a comedian is likely a waste of time. Further, some have suggested Fleischer is a Kaufman-esque character, though I don't find this convincing. However, I felt the compulsion to offer this explanation why he's wrong because I hadn't seen anyone else do it. He's still funny and you should see him if he plays near you.

Here are some relevant links:
http://www.wtfpod.com
http://www.myspace.com/universetoy

Gut of the Quantifier

Podcasting, Pseudo Mathematics, Gamma Ray Bursts and Roger Rabbit.