Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8621214" data-attributes="member: 71699">Got it. Our imagined inhabitants of GH can't know the rules of TB because of gaps in correlation between TB and GH. They can know (via intuition and investigation) the rules if ICE because of correlation between those rules and GH. This isn't all or nothing, as either game could have lacunae and some more, some less successfully simulationist rules. It raises many interesting implications and doubts, which is why I felt it worth including at the level of definition.EDIT One example is that we can notice that there are occasionally things or events during play that an imagined inhabitant runs into, but that the rules are silent upon. We're playing in GH using the ICE rules, and a character is nursing a grandparent with progressive deafness. The condition worsens over time, but how quickly? The group might find a reference from the real world or make a call. The plausibility of finding examples informs an intuition that a game system always models its references incompletely. Such a conclusion sustains arguments that all simulations are incomplete and our only choice is how far incomplete will we accept. A related intuition is that there is a reference behind all other references - the real world - and underlying many disagreements are unsettled differences in opinion over whether that has to be true.Imagining what the inhabitants of the world could know about the rules, is for me a powerful lense for understanding what is or should be counted simulationist. It seems necessarily true that if the game rules correlate to the reference world, then its imagined inhabitants must be able to infer them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8621214, member: 71699"] Got it. Our imagined inhabitants of GH can't know the rules of TB because of gaps in correlation between TB and GH. They can know (via intuition and investigation) the rules if ICE because of correlation between those rules and GH. This isn't all or nothing, as either game could have lacunae and some more, some less successfully simulationist rules. It raises many interesting implications and doubts, which is why I felt it worth including at the level of definition. EDIT One example is that we can notice that there are occasionally things or events during play that an imagined inhabitant runs into, but that the rules are silent upon. We're playing in GH using the ICE rules, and a character is nursing a grandparent with progressive deafness. The condition worsens over time, but how quickly? The group might find a reference from the real world or make a call. The plausibility of finding examples informs an intuition that a game system [I]always[/I] models its references incompletely. Such a conclusion sustains arguments that all simulations are incomplete and our only choice is how far incomplete will we accept. A related intuition is that there is a reference behind all other references - the real world - and underlying many disagreements are unsettled differences in opinion over whether that has to be true. Imagining what the inhabitants of the world could know about the rules, is for me a powerful lense for understanding what is or should be counted simulationist. It seems necessarily true that if the game rules correlate to the reference world, then its imagined inhabitants must be able to infer them. [/QUOTE]

Verification