Do You Think We'll Ever Run Out of New Moves?

It'd be a sad day, but do you think we'll ever exhaust poi? Or is it something that there will continue to be innovation in forever? I speak only in terms of moves, not in terms of stylistic elements.

Well, we've certainly reached far and the amount of shapes and patterns that can be done with poi, while vast, is not infinite. At the rate tech is growing I'll make a wild guess that we'll reach 'peak poi' in around a year.

If you wish to reach the 'end' you´l reach it, if not, you wont...

It might slow down, but someone will come up with something new at some point, although I am not sure whether anything in the last year or so has been brand new, rather it seems to have been a development of previous trends.

I think that wer are mostly away from a real "ending" - yeah maybe most patterns are reached - but did you try playing them isolated - whole antispin/inspin? Maybe there is a possibility of doing more complexed move like hybrids which are including 3 or more driving-styles.

And of course - do you try to play (isolated) antispins with the center not rotating in a circle? I saw "gè" doing some great staff-flowers which I think Cyrielle has covered in a .pdf-file. This patterns are really amazing and I hope just a beginning.

And if we really run out of tech patterns - we should start thinking about how to get them that we still have our flow and it looks great for an audience for example.

And of course in Evolution there is never an ending theres are only pauses!

I personally thikn that it will come to an end at some point. Definately not for an individual person, that's just too much for one person.

Someone will probably come up with something new soon.

Also, I could think that there may be more play with point isolations coming in after a while.

Well, im working on the next breakthrough currently. I will reveal it when its done. It will rock your world.

Turns out Nick has a tutorial for it

jk, I don't even know what it is yet, but that would be pretty funny in my book

damn it. thats the last time I give help to someone who is struggling. He was all like help! WoodlandApple, I need help! and I, like a sucker, showed him some moves.

But can he do it btb

Lol, not only btb, but utl, bth, and atomic in both those places. If what your're doing doesn't work like that, than he made it work just to piss you off

I curse you Nick!

now Im damned to play second fiddle. I will end up dying bitter and alone; doomed to always walk in the shadow of the one that refined my lifes work.

Too bad for you, as he has mastered your cursing abilities as well

I don't think it's actually an answerable question in its present form. In mathematical and some philosophical theories it's important to know how to individuate the objects in the domain of discourse--that is, you need to know when you're talking about one thing or two (more technically, most individuating expressions in formal theories are similar to the extensionality axiom from ZF, with the form "if Ax iff Ay, then x=y"). If moves are not distinct physical events distinguished by the region of spacetime they occupy, but are abstract objects like movement forms (which I'm pretty sure they are [if they exist at all] if you and I can actually perform the same move), then I'm not sure what individuates them (except insofar as I suspect they're a type of mathematical object [if they exist at all] and I know what individuates mathematical objects in general).

The point of this comment, besides it being a verbose form of shrugging in response to the question, is that maybe someone out there should actually find individuating criteria for moves. Me, I'm too lazy and too rusty with the applied mathematics to do it myself. There are a number of interesting properties we can name about various moves (driving style, direction/timing, even connections to other moves), but it would be interesting to know if there were some more interesting fundamental properties that these were special cases of.

Alternatively, it may be that there are no criteria for individuating them, from which I would conclude that there are no such things as poi moves at all. Actually, I find this idea amusing, so I'm going to accept this as my default until I find a good criterion; my official stance is there are no poi moves anyway, let alone a worry of running out

That's it for my super abstract tech musing (babble) for now.

Look into what drex was trying to work out a couple of months ago, classifying (specifically) hybrids according to timing and directional symmetries. I have not had the bandwidth to see how far he has gotten, but it looked promising.

Hmm... I'll drop him a line some time. It would also be interesting if hybrids existed, but other things didn't

I'm probably the only spinner pedantic enough to be seriously concerned about the ontology of poi... Yeesh. I suppose it's better than worrying about its ethics.

Here lies your answer.

Pity; I don't have a clue what it means!

Probably not the only one dealing with poi ontology. You might just look at it from a different viewpoint.

re: no moves really exist:
This might be possible, but is unhelpful. Most frameworks seem to be consistent nowadays which means that communicating those moves (real or imaginary) to others has a chance of success. If we throw that out, there will be anarchy.

Well, in the absence of "moves" there are things that I'm pretty sure do exist, like driving styles, timing and direction of poi and arms, ordered pairs of these, etc., which certainly are useful. And to say that something like a meltdow doesn't exist is not to slight the fiction, it's simply to clarify some theoretical groundwork.

My curiosity on this particular topic is a pretty purely philosophical one about ontology and, more broadly, the aesthetics of poi. Basically, this is the overlap of poi with my other hobby, analytic philosophy.

I suppose it is true that you do have that framework. So then a move is just a shorter way of referring to something built in that framework?