OT: An Existential Dilemma

[quantum_mechani]

Originally posted by PvK:
While it is true that we could all be Norfleet, it is perhaps more likely that you can win Dominions II against full Impossible AI's on the Aran map while forcing yourself to only fight using Gift of Reason-ed tainted Blood Slave units.

PvK

Wait... you still need someone to cast GoR and blood hunt .

[Jack Simth]

He said "...only fight using..." - he allows for using other things for other purposes, apparently.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
He said "...only fight using..." - he allows for using other things for other purposes, apparently.

Well, I suppose 'fight' is a bit ambiguous, you might not be able to avoid having them in a battle at some point. And what about spells; is casting seeking arrow fighting?

[ May 25, 2004, 05:55: Message edited by: quantum_mechani ]

[PvK]

Jack Simth is correct. I said only fight with them, but not to the exclusion of doing other things besides fighting.

You could, for example, blood hunt and lead slaves into battle for them to get hurt so they can become units so you can GoR them. If you take the challenge hyper-literally (as I expect everyone-is-Norfleet conspirators would want to), then one of the hard parts is actually getting any blood slave units, since I think you need to get them hurt, yet win the battle... not sure about that. You might be able to have them run away and end up as units back in an adjacent province.

Spells and items for the GoR'd ex-blood slaves would be allowed, and even mages casting buff spells on them. Seeking Arrow and such are grey areas. It would still be a massive accomplishment with them, but without them, it would be so much greater.

It does sort of beg the question of a seemingly-easier sub-problem, though, huh? Can you win without any fighting units? Again, legal questions abound, such as Ghost Riders, the Admiral, etc.

That doesn't really have the same panache as GoR'ing blood slaves to SC status and relying on massive amounts of luck and finesse, however.

PvK

[Zapmeister]

Originally posted by PvK:
While it is true that we could all be Norfleet, it is perhaps more likely that... It's possible. Just not very likely.

Hmmm. Someone with more education in this area may care to correct me, but I believe that the above statement is untrue for a rather esoteric reason.

That reason is that the words "likely" and "possible" imply a probabalistic treatment of an existential question, which is invalid.

It is meaningless, for example, to conclude that there is a 60% chance that there is a god. Either there is a god or there isn't - there's no 60% about it.

The same applies to questions of historical fact. You can't say that its likely that the Great Flood occurred, because it has already either happened or not. What you can describe is your uncertainty in the matter, which is different (being a statement about your knowledge rather than about the alleged event).

Hmm. Time to go home and do my turn.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by PvK:
While it is true that we could all be Norfleet

Fortunetly for humanity, it is not physically possible. Unless you are playing with possibility that Norfleet have some god-like powers. In this case you would have one seriously sick in the head god, assuming 1/4 what he have been telling us about himself on this forum is true.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:
[qb] While it is true that we could all be Norfleet, it is perhaps more likely that... It's possible. Just not very likely.

Hmmm. Someone with more education in this area may care to correct me, but I believe that the above statement is untrue for a rather esoteric reason.

That reason is that the words "likely" and "possible" imply a probabalistic treatment of an existential question, which is invalid.

It is meaningless, for example, to conclude that there is a 60% chance that there is a god. Either there is a god or there isn't - there's no 60% about it.

The same applies to questions of historical fact. You can't say that its likely that the Great Flood occurred, because it has already either happened or not. What you can describe is your uncertainty in the matter, which is different (being a statement about your knowledge rather than about the alleged event).

---

I am not an expert there myself but I believe that what you said about invalidness of probabalistic approach to an existential question such as wether the god exist or no, is correct.

However I think that you can approach in such matter the historical questions, such as wether graet flood or other global event happened there and than, or not. Granted, it would likely to be impossible to calcualte exact probablility, but you can, assuming that you posses enough historical related information, operate with terms such as "very likely",
"possible", "highly unlikely", etc.

Oh well, I hope I am answering the correct question here Zapmeister - midnight is not a good time to get existential. Time to hit the bed.