Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Veni, Vidi, Vacancy

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday, May 5, 2003, at 12:10  AM, Glotmorf wrote:

> On 5/5/03 at 12:05 AM Daniel Lepage wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, May 4, 2003, at 11:35  PM, Glotmorf wrote:
> >
> > > On 5/4/03 at 11:25 PM Daniel Lepage wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ah, but what you do not realize is that penguins are irrelevant to 
> > > > the
> > > > issue at hand. I submit to the players that the Baron is not, and 
> > > > has
> > > > never been, a penguin. E is, however, a Toad.
> > > >
> > > > I cite r1183: On any roll from 83 to 90, a random player becomes a
> > > > Penguin, the effects of which are identical to becoming a Toad.
> > > >
> > > > What are the effects of becoming a Toad? The object is now a Toad.
> > > > What are the effects of becoming a Penguin? They're identical to the
> > > > effects of becoming a Toad; thus, an object that has become a 
> > > > Penguin
> > > > is now a Toad.
> > > >
> > > > Thus, when the Baron became a Penguin, e in fact ended up as a Toad;
> > > > and as nothing has change about said toadliness, e is still such 
> > > > now,
> > > > Q.E.D.
> > >
> > > Sorry, dude.  Dad the Lawyer and I got into this a couple times.
> > >
> > > Suppose two elements under the law happen to have apparently 
> > > identical
> > > properties, such that they are treated the same way under similar
> > > circumstances.  Does that mean the elements are interchangable?
> >
> > If one of the elements is defined to be identical to the other, then
> > the two can be used interchangeably - a change to one element is, de
> > facto, a change to the other.
> >
> > > No, because they are defined separately.  Therefore, even if the 
> > > rules
> > > don't distinguish the effects of one from another *at this time*, the
> > > fact that the rules *could* distinguish them means they are by
> > > necessity two separate items.
> > >
> > > The cheesier example is from programming.  Creating ints a and b, and
> > > then having a = b, does not mean a has become b; changing a doesn't
> > > change b.
> >
> > But creating a and b, and then declaring b to be a reference to the
> > same object as a, does mean that the two are the same - changing a 
> > will
> > change b. (Any python programmer has experienced this at some point)
> >
> > > Besides, by your claim that being a toad is an effect of becoming a
> > > toad, it would make the rule paradoxical.  If being a toad is an
> > > effect of becoming a toad, then having become a toad as a result of
> > > sleeping with a siren is also an effect of becoming a toad; however, 
> > > a
> > > penguin did not become a penguin or a toad as a result of sleeping
> > > with a siren, so that effect at least doesn't carry over.
> >
> > The only effect that directly follows from the event "$OBJECT becomes 
> > a
> > Toad" is that $OBJECT is now a Toad. "$OBJECT becomes a Toad" does not
> > in any way, shape, or form imply that $OBJECT had intimate connections
> > with a Siren. Indeed, it is possible to become a toad in a number of
> > ways - unlucky Dark Hand rolls, Caffeine burnout, etc.
> >
> > > So either the penguin rule combined with the toad rule is 
> > > paradoxical,
> > > or the fact that a penguin is defined in a separate rule regulates a
> > > penguin's existence as a penguin and not a toad.
> >
> > "Penguin" is never defined. There is no such thing as a Penguin. There
> > is "the act of becoming a Penguin", which is defined to be the same as
> > "the act of becoming a Toad"; "the act of becoming a Toad" causes the
> > object taking the action to end up as a toad.
>
> You lost the word "effects" in there, as in "the effects of becoming a 
> toad".  Identical "effects" don't mean identical objects, or even 
> identical classes of objects.  The effect of a hedgehog curling up 
> into a ball is identical to the effect of the growth of a horse 
> chestnut: you get this round prickly thing.  But a hedgehog and a 
> horse chestnut aren't interchangable (except possibly in the context 
> of throwing either one at someone).

My mistake. That last paragraph should have read:
"Penguin" is never defined. There is no such thing as a Penguin. There 
is "the act of becoming a Penguin", which is defined to have exactly 
the same effects as "the act of becoming a Toad"; "the act of becoming 
a Toad" has the effect of causing the object taking the action to end 
up as a toad; therefore, "the act of becoming a Penguin", having the 
same effect on the object, also has the effect of causing the object 
taking the action to end up as a toad.

--
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss