Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8620103" data-attributes="member: 16814">This is kinda a muddle.&nbsp; You started by saying that simulation is saying that Not Set A doesn't happen -- that it's a negative test and if things are precluded (Not Set A), then we have simulation.&nbsp; My counter is that this describes many types of mechanics, including those that aren't simulationist at all.&nbsp; Here you've moved to saying that there's some Set A of things that are directed to happen.&nbsp; This does mean some Not Set A cannot happen, by logical exclusion not the mechanics intentionally excluding these things as a special case.&nbsp; However, since the breadth of Set A is indeterminate in your action and can be extremely broad (to the point of very few things in Not Set A), we're still including many, many mechanics that aren't simulationist in your conjecture.Again, the problem here is trying to define simulation with the negative space instead of the positive space.Yes, it's not a simulationist game.&nbsp; It doesn't have simulationist mechanics.&nbsp; But it meets your claim of the mechanics establishing some form of Not A.&nbsp; The argument that there some unstated dial of the size of Not A versus A that steps in to say this isn't simulationist but the attempted definition still works is what I was pointing out as special pleading.Meanwhile, if you say that simulationist mechanics direct a specific A -- that there's a mandated fictional change by the resolution of the mechanics -- you evade this particular problem because BitD doesn't mandate any A, just a set of Not A.Set B, C, D,... insofar as they are different from Set A are definitionally Not Set A.&nbsp; You've made a formal logical error in that last sentence.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8620103, member: 16814"] This is kinda a muddle. You started by saying that simulation is saying that Not Set A doesn't happen -- that it's a negative test and if things are precluded (Not Set A), then we have simulation. My counter is that this describes many types of mechanics, including those that aren't simulationist at all. Here you've moved to saying that there's some Set A of things that are directed to happen. This does mean some Not Set A cannot happen, by logical exclusion not the mechanics intentionally excluding these things as a special case. However, since the breadth of Set A is indeterminate in your action and can be extremely broad (to the point of very few things in Not Set A), we're still including many, many mechanics that aren't simulationist in your conjecture. Again, the problem here is trying to define simulation with the negative space instead of the positive space. Yes, it's not a simulationist game. It doesn't have simulationist mechanics. But it meets your claim of the mechanics establishing some form of Not A. The argument that there some unstated dial of the size of Not A versus A that steps in to say this isn't simulationist but the attempted definition still works is what I was pointing out as special pleading. Meanwhile, if you say that simulationist mechanics direct a specific A -- that there's a mandated fictional change by the resolution of the mechanics -- you evade this particular problem because BitD doesn't mandate any A, just a set of Not A. Set B, C, D,... insofar as they are different from Set A are definitionally Not Set A. You've made a formal logical error in that last sentence. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification