Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is player agency to you?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9107894" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>How can one account be more true than another account, if there is no unit of measurement for truth?</p><p></p><p>How can one person be more kind than another person, if there is no unit of measurement for kindness?</p><p></p><p>How can one person be more intelligent than another, if there is no unit of measurement for intelligence?</p><p></p><p>How can one event be more influential on history than another, if there is no unit of measurement for influence?</p><p></p><p>These things can still be objectively true, without being about measured quantities. We look, instead, at other things. With truthfulness, we look for how many <em>instances</em> of true statements, empty statements, and false statements there are. That does not, <em>at all</em>, mean that we have developed some measurement system for truth.</p><p></p><p>One person can be kinder than another, and we find out by looking at their actions. Person A might show kindness to their children, but behave terribly toward hired help. Another might show consistent kindness to every person they meet. Person A is kinder than person B, even though there is no such thing as a "measurement of kindness." We look at instances, <em>events</em>, rather than at <em>quantities</em>. Same for intelligence. How do you determine whether someone is intelligent? You ask them lots of questions, and consider factors like speed and accuracy, but also subtlety and perhaps even wit. Intelligence is <em>notoriously</em> difficult to give any kind of "measure" to, and yet it is--I hope--widely understood that some people are in fact more intelligent than others, and indeed that "intelligence" may come in many different forms relevant to different contexts.</p><p></p><p>Historical events might even be more apt a comparison than intelligence here though. How could you even begin to measure "historical significance"? Yet we--I hope!--agree that the life of a certain Yeshua ben Yosef has had significantly more influence on human history than, say, a peasant in Ireland born on the same day. The creation of the Internet has almost certainly had more influence on human history than the invention of, say, Betamax. Etc. Some things are simply--objectively--more influential on history than others, <em>even though there is no such thing as a measurable quantity of influence</em>.</p><p></p><p>Or, if you want something completely mathematical:</p><p></p><p>First place is more successful than second place. Objectively. Yet there is no such thing as a measurement of place-ness. Ordinal data does not have some measure of kilo-successums that indicates first place is better, and we can't fall back on any other universal measurement either. Sometimes "first" place means fastest. Sometimes it means longest, or largest. Sometimes, in something like speedrunning, it can mean the shortest time <em>meeting some other standard</em>. E.g. you can topple a 3-minute "minimum percent" speedrun with a 3-<em>hour</em> run if you manage to find a way to reduce the percentage part instead of the time part--<em>no</em> single measure could ever capture the notion of "first place" in that context, because both parts are critical to the placement. Sometimes, with something like world records, it could cover any conceivable <em>thing</em> that can be recorded, e.g. something that takes a <em>long</em> time can be "first place" if that long time is a length of years, as in, old age.</p><p></p><p>A universal, commensurate quantity that can be used for evaluating all things is <em>one</em> way for something to be objectively more or less than another. It is not the only way. Virtue ethics in particular tends to reject the idea that there even <em>could be</em> such a single, universally commensurate scale for the "goodness" of actions, and yet many who advance virtue ethics <em>embrace</em> the idea that some acts are objectively good and others are objectively not.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9107894, member: 6790260"] How can one account be more true than another account, if there is no unit of measurement for truth? How can one person be more kind than another person, if there is no unit of measurement for kindness? How can one person be more intelligent than another, if there is no unit of measurement for intelligence? How can one event be more influential on history than another, if there is no unit of measurement for influence? These things can still be objectively true, without being about measured quantities. We look, instead, at other things. With truthfulness, we look for how many [I]instances[/I] of true statements, empty statements, and false statements there are. That does not, [I]at all[/I], mean that we have developed some measurement system for truth. One person can be kinder than another, and we find out by looking at their actions. Person A might show kindness to their children, but behave terribly toward hired help. Another might show consistent kindness to every person they meet. Person A is kinder than person B, even though there is no such thing as a "measurement of kindness." We look at instances, [I]events[/I], rather than at [I]quantities[/I]. Same for intelligence. How do you determine whether someone is intelligent? You ask them lots of questions, and consider factors like speed and accuracy, but also subtlety and perhaps even wit. Intelligence is [I]notoriously[/I] difficult to give any kind of "measure" to, and yet it is--I hope--widely understood that some people are in fact more intelligent than others, and indeed that "intelligence" may come in many different forms relevant to different contexts. Historical events might even be more apt a comparison than intelligence here though. How could you even begin to measure "historical significance"? Yet we--I hope!--agree that the life of a certain Yeshua ben Yosef has had significantly more influence on human history than, say, a peasant in Ireland born on the same day. The creation of the Internet has almost certainly had more influence on human history than the invention of, say, Betamax. Etc. Some things are simply--objectively--more influential on history than others, [I]even though there is no such thing as a measurable quantity of influence[/I]. Or, if you want something completely mathematical: First place is more successful than second place. Objectively. Yet there is no such thing as a measurement of place-ness. Ordinal data does not have some measure of kilo-successums that indicates first place is better, and we can't fall back on any other universal measurement either. Sometimes "first" place means fastest. Sometimes it means longest, or largest. Sometimes, in something like speedrunning, it can mean the shortest time [I]meeting some other standard[/I]. E.g. you can topple a 3-minute "minimum percent" speedrun with a 3-[I]hour[/I] run if you manage to find a way to reduce the percentage part instead of the time part--[I]no[/I] single measure could ever capture the notion of "first place" in that context, because both parts are critical to the placement. Sometimes, with something like world records, it could cover any conceivable [I]thing[/I] that can be recorded, e.g. something that takes a [I]long[/I] time can be "first place" if that long time is a length of years, as in, old age. A universal, commensurate quantity that can be used for evaluating all things is [I]one[/I] way for something to be objectively more or less than another. It is not the only way. Virtue ethics in particular tends to reject the idea that there even [I]could be[/I] such a single, universally commensurate scale for the "goodness" of actions, and yet many who advance virtue ethics [I]embrace[/I] the idea that some acts are objectively good and others are objectively not. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What is player agency to you?
Top