by GalFisk » Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:52 am
dust = acronym? slang? No to both. free microscopic particles of solid material? Yes. particles in the air? They can be airborne.
Is there reverse causality? I mean: less mysticism implies more dust and more dust implies less mysticism? There was both more mysticism and less dust in the situation before the change. Just the first implication (less mysticism --> more dust)? Would less dust lead to more mysticism? Would more mysticism lead to less dust necessarily? They don't lead to eachother - correlation is not causation. To be sure: are we talking about tons of dust (I mean in total)? In the world, yes. Grams? In the puzzle location, this. Was dust already artificially produced? Yes. Is dust added on a mass scale? What do you mean? Dust is added on a massive scale, but dust is not weighed on a scale. is dust added in corners of houses? on shelves? Inside buildings? No to all. In Earth? On Earth. On another planet? (e.g. space missions or shuttles producing dust when landing on a planet) No.
Dust like the one produced by pinning pencils? Glitter powder? Stardust? "normal dust" as the one found on shelves or on books? Is landing safely relevant (e.g. more dust soften the fall)? No to all. Is such dust tangible by the people having added it? It exists, but they don't often notice it. As soon as it is added? Normally not. Is the more the use of a technology the more the dust? Yes. Directly? Indirectly? Hard to say.
Is the material of the dust relevant? Yes. Is the dust made of a metal? Partially. of waste? bacteria? plant pollen, human and animal hairs, textile fibers, paper fibers, minerals from outdoor soil, human skin cells, burnt meteorite particles? No to the rest. Something that can be found in the local environment? No. Fine dust/ particulate matters relevant? Yes. Dust as more granularity? No.
More people? This --> anyone? No. Anyone having a certain technology? A certain device? Yes to both. Anyone belonging to a minority? No. To a certain group? They're sometimes grouped. people believing in something which is not true? The beliefs of the people adding the dust are irrelevant. The people believing in the mysticism believe in something that is not true.
artificially = through technology? Yes --> is dust a row material in this case? A production waste? A final product? No to all. "added through technology" = technology "produces" the dust? This. technology attracts more dust? technology
Technology = devices? Means of transport? This. Electronic? Internet? screens? health related? An appliance? Vacuum cleaner relevant? No.
FA to all --> ups maybe I said ash instead of dust. Is this the FA? Yes. If so may I repeat the same questions as above but with "dust" instead of "ash", please? Yes.
Relevant where the dust was added? Yes, broadly. On someone? On a river? On water? On the forehead of someone? No to all. Was it a colored dust? Was dust put inside something? Does it feed something? No to all.
Does the ash hide something relevant? Someone relevant? No to both.
Is dust used in a process? No, but it's caused by one. Has dust been added in years? In a second? In days? In. months? Hours? Each addition happens in seconds, bu combined, they happen in years.
was the dust "added"? DOYD of "added". It was deposited. was it added somewhere? Yes. does it gather somewhere relevantly? It's deposited in relevant places. Is dust here considered as a waste? Yes. Something to be cleaned? Sometimes.
occult; This. --> is the truth occulted/hidden by someone (e.g. Govern? Private industries? Firms? Lobbies?)? Like a receipt not revealed? Health consequences in using certain technology? No to all.
believe to something which is not true? Yes --> something related to science? A phenomenon? This. Aliens? Something which was believed to be supernatural? Yes. Did someone believe in something which was not true? Yes. The majority of humans? No. Relevant the reason why it was believed so? Yes. Was the belief supported by science? No. By rational suppositions? No. By faith? Yope - not by any religion AFAIK, but by a belief system.
Was it believed something about the dust? No. E.g. that since the technology added more dust it was detrimental for the health? For the environment? No to both. Or maybe it was inexplicable from where the dust came? No.
WAG --> is it referred to data and privacy? E.g. less mysticism about data sharing implies more dust in the sense of more granularity of the data given? Or viceversa: awareness on data importance and lack of privacy lead to more dust in the sense of more censoring on data? Nice guess, but no.