Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Reality Corrected

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 1, 2004, at 12:47 AM, Glotmorf wrote:

> R578.II: "Societies may only take actions which the rules
> permit them to."  The rules, having established mechanisms for
> change and self-regulation, don't permit a society to have
> control over that.
>
> Also, from r578.V: "The Administrator may choose to refuse any change
> to a Charter (other than one that removes all contents of it) or any 
> Auto
> Action for any reason, including but not limited to it causing 
> confusion, it
> putting an undue burden on the Administrator, it breaking the game, it
> causing a paradox or unknown state of the game, or it having unintended
> consequences."
>
> Offhand, I'd say A containing B containing A qualifies as a paradox, 
> it being
> subject to Wonko's whims constitutes breaking the game (hey, you 
> couldn't
> accept ME as a beneavolent tyrant), and I don't indend to tolerate the
> consequence of Wonko absorbing B Nomic bloblike into an entity under 
> eir
> own control.  And, yes, I'd say the creation of a charter constitutes 
> a change,
> since it's going from nonexistent to existent.

The reason I created Reality was not as an attempt to gain dominance 
over the rules; it was because I found the situation interesting, and 
decided to act on it.
	I'd been thinking first about the inactivity of INH. It seems that 
there's no reason for anyone to use INH right now, as almost any 
subgame proposal can get enough support to be added to the rules. So I 
was thinking about the possibility of allowing nonplayers to join INH 
subgames, so that an INH subgame might include players from many 
different Nomic games. Then I thought about the differences between a 
society, defined in B Nomic, with numerous players from outside the 
game, and a different game of nomic, that's just passingly referenced 
in the rules of B Nomic, or that B Nomic claims to have as a society. I 
couldn't think of any substantial ones.
	Meanwhile, an unrelated thought had crossed my mind - how do you deal 
with two rules that claim precedence over each other? Obviously that's 
what Suber's rule 211 is for, but what if it's involved in the 
precedence dispute? For example, rule X contradicts rule X+1, they both 
claim to take precedence over each other, and rule X+1 claims 
precedence over rule 211. Then, by rule X, rule X should win, by X+1, 
X+1 should win; 211 claims that the one with the lowest ordinal number 
takes precedence (X), but X+1 claims precedence over 211 too. Thus, 
there's no real way to resolve this conflict, since the standard tools 
for doing so can't be used unless you already know the outcome.
	These two ideas wandered through my mind, in search of something to 
connect with.
	And I guess they found each other, and I made Reality, a separate 
game, officially acknowledged as a part of B Nomic by B Nomic's rules, 
and claiming to take precedence over them.
	In my mind, it's as if I wrote a constitution on a piece of paper, and 
went to Washington to explain to the Supreme Court why, according to my 
constitution, they must give me all their money. They'd laugh, and 
possibly throw me into jail. What makes their constitution better than 
mine? The only difference I can think of is that they've got almost 300 
million citizens who all abide by it - I can say, give me all your 
money or I'll send you to jail, but the authorities in the jail don't 
follow my constitution, so nothing would happen.
	But now imagine that somehow, I managed to convince 300 million people 
that my constitution was the right one. Then I go to those same 
justices, and ask for my money. What can they do? If they disobey, my 
300 million supporters will throw them in jail. Clearly, at this point, 
their constitution is subordinate to mine. What changed? Not anything 
about the document itself... just the fact that suddenly more people 
think I'm right than think they're right.
	In the case of Reality, I realize that at the moment it has no control 
over B Nomic. With only a few players, B Nomic's rules will be 
followed, and my absurd mental exercises will be laughed at as 
impossible.
	But imagine if every player of B Nomic joined Reality. Or if all of B 
Nomic, plus a dozen nonplayers joined, and they all believed that B 
Nomic was a subgame of Reality. Then for all intents and purposes, it 
would be. Even, for that matter, if a simple majority of all players 
believed, the larger part of the game would act as if it were true.
	In a way, it's a lot like the principles behind Orwell's "1984" - if 
the truth or falsity of a fact is meaningless except inasmuch as it 
guides human behavior, then convincing humanity that it is true means 
that it is, for all intents and purposes, true. The platonic 
'gamestate', which supposedly exists independently of the players' 
perception of it, can nonetheless be overridden by a majority of 
players; if every player agrees that x is true, then the game will 
continue as if x were true, even if it was not, since the properties of 
the gamestate are purely abstract.
	So there's the situation. I have created a new game, whose existence 
is recognized by B Nomic and which claims to define B Nomic. If a 
majority of all players believe that Reality is a tiny part of B Nomic, 
subject to B Nomic's rules, then it is. If you all join me in my 
Reality, then it is B Nomic who's subject to Reality.
	Whether you believe is up to you.

--
Wonko

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