Re: [s-d] [s-b] Proposals

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On May 22, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Personally I dispute the currently favored interpretation. I think
> unaltered universes in a timeline where time travel isn't barred from
> efficacy are not self consistent. I also think a single retroalterable
> timeline is more fun, and so I like the notion that this game is "really"
> B(1-11)(1-7).
> 
> (Of course we can always set up ambiguous situations where we still have to
> track what game actions mean for various woobleverses, but that is a
> separate concern.)

Honestly, when I posted my resolution of proposals, I was expecting there to be a bunch of RRs posted disputing it, and I seriously considered submitting some myself. Perhaps I should have. I was really not expecting the first message posted afterward to be a proposal formalizing even more the kind of multiverse I started setting up.

I completely agree that there are problems with the many-worlds plan, not the least of which is how the number of worlds may grow exponentially. But I’m also concerned that in one single retroalterable timeline, if we accidentally pass a proposal that does the equivalent of “Just before this Proposal becomes Passed, change it to be Failed.” and we need to deal with similar paradoxes that may completely break the game if we don’t have rules dealing with it (or if the rules are ineffective in dealing with it).

But I do plan on assigning RRs in as “fair” a way as possible, though, so feel free to submit any clarifications you want made on how the universe works.

-- 
Peter C.
B Nomic State as I understand it: <http://bnomic.org>

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