Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7350526" data-attributes="member: 16814">Bafflegab.  We clearly aren't discussing brain function, and I don't concede this argument, either.  I'm uninterested in the side discussion it would entail, though.Having a location in time or space is not the full criterion of the Way of Negation for abstract vs concrete objects.  In fact, using the first principle of physicality to satisfy the second criteria of causation is expressly bad logic.  That entire argument even accepts that some things may not have a location in time and space but may still have causal properties.I can also have ideas about things that do exist.  This isn't an argument that works -- you cannot find one example of a thing and then import the properties of that example to the entire class. Not argued.Also not argued.Again, not argued.What was argued is that I can imagine possible things, consistent things, and have an objective line on that consistency.  This becomes difficult the more complex a situation I imagine, but a simple statement like, "The boy walked up the hill" can meet all of those criteria and still be fiction.Again, you cannot take an example of impossible, inconsistent things and say that all such things are impossible and inconsistent.  This is a basic logical failure -- going from the specific to the general.  And yet, you authored the fiction that the mathematician cannot be in two places at once because he cannot be in two places at once.  You used fictional concepts applied to your scenario (ie, I imagine the fictional world my mathematician inhabits spa has spatial properties consistent with the real world in this regard) to constrain the fiction you authored.  Can you author you fiction about the mathematician without such constraints?  Sure, but you didn't, you used another fictional concept to modify how you authored the fiction of you mathematician.  The constraint you imagined caused you to author your fiction in a certain way.Did it cause you to author the fiction?  No.  Just like a rock doesn't cause a window to break.  But, absent the rock, the results change, just like absent your fictional constraint, the results change.Question:  do rules exist?  According to your arguments, they cannot, as they are concepts.  Note, there's a difference between the rules of an RPG and the physical arrangement of woodpulp and ink laid out in patterns so that you can transport those concepts.If rules are concepts, and so abstract and non-existent, then they are like fiction (and, arguably, as they don't describe real events they are fictions) and you're arguing that this fiction defines how you can author fiction in an RPG.Godzilla does exist -- not as a 80 story tall atomic lizard, but as the concept of an 80-foot tall lizard.  That concept exists, else how would I know what you're talking about.  Is it a concrete object?  No, clearly.  It's an abstract one.  But that doesn't eliminate it's existence because abstract objects exist, and can have causality.  But, thank you for admitting that you cannot discuss fiction without the fiction being involved.  This means that your story must exist, else you should be able to discuss non-existent things by just referring to the set of things that doesn't exist.NOTE:  it occurs to me that your penchant for abusing the definition of words may again be at the forefront, so, what do you mean when you say 'exists.'</blockquote>

Verification