[eia] Re: "physically possible"

["Kyle H" <menexenus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

    I agree that a chain of events resulting in a Spanish invasion is
"conceptually possible" (in my fictional examples).  I don't agree that that
chain of events is "physically possible" unless there is an *existing* corps
(not merely a potential one) that could do the invading.

    If I knock over the empty glass sitting next to me as I type this, is it
"physically possible" that I will spill water on the ground in doing so.
Sure, *if* I put some water in it first!  But if I don't, then it isn't
physically possible for my knocked-over glass to spill any water.  (There's
no water in it to be spilled!)
    The point is that there is a perfectly legitimate sense of "physically
possible" that depends on what conditions exist at the time of utterance.  I
think that it is this sense of "physically possible" that is being invoked
in 4.2.2.3, primarily because the alternative is absurd (in game terms).

    Oh well.  I've made my case.  If it's not persuasive, then so be it.
(At the end of the day, it's really not that important.)

kdh

> I still stand by my analysis of this last time: There is, at the time of
> the declaration of war, a chain of events that would lead to a Spanish
> corps entering Algeria sometime during this turn.
>
> In the case of the game, I don't see what the difference would be between
> physical and conceptual possibility, since the rules define the game
> "physics".
>
> --
> J.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eia mailing list
> eia@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia

_______________________________________________
eia mailing list
eia@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/eia