Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 6960075" data-attributes="member: 6857506">This brings up a point that I think needs more attention.&nbsp; In this discussion, people have been tossing around the notion of &quot;knowing location&quot; as if it were a simple binary proposition.&nbsp; I think it is not.&nbsp; As I see it there are (at least) two complications.<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Certainty.&nbsp; In reality, I never know anything for sure - I am always just guessing.&nbsp; Sometimes my certainty will be high, other times, low.&nbsp; And to make matters more complex, it is possible to have multiple guesses about the same thing, with varying certainties (approximate probabilities) attached to them. I see the monk go behind the pillar.&nbsp; If I am not very imaginative, I may be highly certain that the monk is behind the pillar.&nbsp; On the other hand if I take monkish trickery into account, I may guess that it is also possible that she has shadow stepped to the area behind another pillar.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Precision.&nbsp; In this context, 'location' must have a dimension of precision attached to it.&nbsp; I may believe with high certainty that a creature is in a particular room, but be quite uncertain which 5x5 area it is in.&nbsp; Or to put it in a more precise, but overly verbose way, for each 5x5 area in the room, the certainty of my belief that the creature is in that 5x5 area reflects that I consider all those possibilities to be equally probably.</li>
</ol>So what is the relevance of all this?&nbsp; For me, at least, it can help make explicit some assumptions that have people talking past each other if the assumptions remain implicit.&nbsp; If we take for instance the contention that &quot;a creature whose location is known cannot be hidden&quot;, we can now see that this is problematic in several ways.&nbsp; First of all, we'll have to rephrase to make sure that it is clear what &quot;know&quot; means in this context.&nbsp; I think (but I could be wrong) what most folks mean is that &quot;if your belief about a creature's location is correct, then the creature cannot be hidden from you&quot;.&nbsp; Now the problem becomes more obvious - out of all my beliefs about the creature's location, which one are you talking about?&nbsp; How certain must I be and what precision must my guess have?&nbsp; Is my being moderately certain that a creature is in a particular 30x30 area sufficient to preclude its being hidden from me?&nbsp; I would not think so, but some of you may disagree. (?)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Harzel, post: 6960075, member: 6857506"] This brings up a point that I think needs more attention. In this discussion, people have been tossing around the notion of "knowing location" as if it were a simple binary proposition. I think it is not. As I see it there are (at least) two complications. [LIST=1] [*]Certainty. In reality, I never know anything for sure - I am always just guessing. Sometimes my certainty will be high, other times, low. And to make matters more complex, it is possible to have multiple guesses about the same thing, with varying certainties (approximate probabilities) attached to them. I see the monk go behind the pillar. If I am not very imaginative, I may be highly certain that the monk is behind the pillar. On the other hand if I take monkish trickery into account, I may guess that it is also possible that she has shadow stepped to the area behind another pillar. [*]Precision. In this context, 'location' must have a dimension of precision attached to it. I may believe with high certainty that a creature is in a particular room, but be quite uncertain which 5x5 area it is in. Or to put it in a more precise, but overly verbose way, for each 5x5 area in the room, the certainty of my belief that the creature is in that 5x5 area reflects that I consider all those possibilities to be equally probably. [/LIST] So what is the relevance of all this? For me, at least, it can help make explicit some assumptions that have people talking past each other if the assumptions remain implicit. If we take for instance the contention that "a creature whose location is known cannot be hidden", we can now see that this is problematic in several ways. First of all, we'll have to rephrase to make sure that it is clear what "know" means in this context. I think (but I could be wrong) what most folks mean is that "if your belief about a creature's location is correct, then the creature cannot be hidden from you". Now the problem becomes more obvious - out of all my beliefs about the creature's location, which one are you talking about? How certain must I be and what precision must my guess have? Is my being moderately certain that a creature is in a particular 30x30 area sufficient to preclude its being hidden from me? I would not think so, but some of you may disagree. (?) [/QUOTE]

Verification