On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Um, it asked whether general "types" of conditions were *in principle*
>>> subject to ratification, and I said they were *if* they were tracked
>>> for points purposes or something. It was one of those "hypothetical"
>>> types of questions, not a specific one. Why is that wrong?
>>
>> My bad, I didn't realize you were approaching the specific example of
>> "is wearing a hat" as a hypothetical.
>
> Neither did I, in the sense that why should it change whether a
> real-life attribute can be ratified, just because the (real life
> status of the!) attribute is tracked for points purposes?
If we can ratify an in-game fiction ("Goethe has 5 points, even though
after ratification we find evidence that e shouldn't have") we can ratify
an out-of-game fiction (Goethe was wearing a hat, even though...) if
we happen to have a recordkeepor for hat-wearing. That was the first
type of example. It's still a direct ratification of something that's
(hypothetically) tracked.
The second type of example you gave ("is a particular person") is a
backwards ratification, and the question was whether ratifying "Goethe
has 5 points" by the recordkeepor for points indirectly ratifies the
existence of Goethe as a person. I opined that it doesn't.
What you really did was lump two very different types of ratification
in your examples so I had to give a split decision.
-Goethe
