Two-valued logic, and its value in gaming

From: Carl Fink (carlf@panix.com)
Date: Thu 15 May 1997 - 03:01:43 EEST


Nick Brooke <Nick_Brooke@compuserve.com>

>It's only if two views of Glorantha become radically incompatible that this
>kind of argument presents problems. So, Carl: what would have to be changed
>or lost if we adopted your vision of divine objective reality?

Rough question. Remembering that I think in RQ terms, the answer
might be: abolish the Divination spell (and most direct contact with
the gods). It still makes no sense to me that one can ask Yelmalio
questions ("Are you the god worshipped by the Aldryami as "Yelmalio"?
and "Are you the god called "Elmal"?) and get different answers,
depending on *one's own opinion at the time*. Oh, abolish

heroquesting, too.

What I'm saying is that I can accept ambiguity in historical data
recorded by subjective observers. Ambiguity in philosophical debate
is inevitable.

Ambiguity in *direct experience of the world*, however, I find as
repugnant as Einstein did. (Yes, I know he was wrong.)

>And which
>Gloranthan sources support this version (scenarios, supplements or stories,
>not rules-mechanical approximations, please). Just a few examples will do.

Here you perhaps miss my point. I'm annoyed at recent Gloranthan
sources *precisely because* they don't support this version, the way
the older (Jrusteli-influenced) stuff did.
- --
Carl Fink carlf@panix.com

". . . people everywhere -- when you strip away their superficial
differences -- are crazy." Dave Barry

------------------------------


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:59:35 EEST